This article was downloaded by: [University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa]On: 18 February 2015, At: 08:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of HomosexualityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

The Influence of Campus Experienceson the Level of Outness Among Trans-Spectrum and Queer-Spectrum StudentsJason C. Garvey PhDa & Susan R. Rankin PhDb

a Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and TechnologyStudies, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USAb Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, Pennsylvania, USAAccepted author version posted online: 16 Oct 2014.Publishedonline: 09 Dec 2014.

To cite this article: Jason C. Garvey PhD & Susan R. Rankin PhD (2015) The Influence of CampusExperiences on the Level of Outness Among Trans-Spectrum and Queer-Spectrum Students, Journal ofHomosexuality, 62:3, 374-393, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.977113

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.977113

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Journal of Homosexuality, 62:374–393, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.977113

The Influence of Campus Experiences on theLevel of Outness Among Trans-Spectrum and

Queer-Spectrum Students

JASON C. GARVEY, PhDDepartment of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies, University of

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

SUSAN R. RANKIN, PhDDepartment of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

Pennsylvania, USA

This study utilized MANOVA and hierarchical multiple regressionto examine the relationships between campus experiences andcoming-out decisions among trans- and queer-spectrum under-graduates. Findings revealed higher levels of outness/disclosure forcisgender LGBQ women, and more negative perceptions of cam-pus climate, classroom climate, and curriculum inclusivity andhigher use of campus resources for trans-spectrum students. Resultsalso revealed that higher levels of outness significantly related topoorer perceptions of campus responses and campus resources.Implications address the need to foster an encouraging and sup-portive campus and classroom climate and to improve the relation-ships with LGBTQ resource centers for trans- and queer-spectrumstudents.

KEYWORDS outness, disclosure, campus experiences, genderidentity, trans-spectrum, queer-spectrum

For many trans-spectrum (androgynous, gender nonconforming, gen-derqueer, transfeminine, transmaculine, transgender, etc.) and queer-spectrum (bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, pansexual, same-gender loving, etc.)students1, their undergraduate experience is often the place where they

Address correspondence to Jason C. Garvey, Department of Educational Leadership,Policy, and Technology Studies, University of Alabama, 315J Graves Hall, Box 870302,Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. E-mail: jcgarvey@bamaed.ua.edu

374

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 375

recognize and accept their sexual identity and/or gender identity (Beemyn,2003; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011a, 2011b; Bilodeau, 2009; D’Augelli, 1991, 1994;Evans & Broido, 1999). These individuals must negotiate the potential ben-efits of a positive reaction with the potential costs of a negative reactionwhen deciding whether or not to share their identity (“coming out”). Trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum individuals must also weigh the benefits andcosts that vary across settings and among different groups (Schope, 2002).Few studies examine the relationship of environmental influences to a trans-or queer-spectrum person’s identity development and disclosure process,nor do they recognize the unique experiences across genders in navigat-ing identity disclosure. As such, the purpose of this study is to understandthe relationships between campus experiences with the identity disclosuredecision among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum undergraduate students.Two specific research questions will be examined:

● Do queer-spectrum trans-spectrum students differ in their level of outnessand experiences both on campus and in the classroom?

● How does sexual identity and gender identity disclosure relate to thesecampus/classroom experiences?

Language Use Decisions

Given the fluid and evolving sexual and gender identities of individuals,it was important in this article to value how respondents chose to identifythemselves as opposed to placing them into socially constructed, fixed cat-egories of sexuality and gender. In the majority of the literature examiningsexual identity and gender identity, researchers use the acronym LGBT toreference sexual and gender minorities. Our paradigm suggests that sexualidentities and gender identities are fluid. We feel it is important to valueindividual identities, as opposed to placing people into fixed, socially con-structed categories of sexuality or gender. We agree with Renn’s (2010) queertheoretical approach, and we allowed our respondents to identify alongboth sexual and gender identity spectra, which we identify here as a queer-spectrum and a transgender-spectrum (trans spectrum), respectively (Rankin,Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). The review of the literature offered herewill use the terminology that the authors have used in their own studies,while the results, discussion, and implications sections will adopt the queer-and trans-spectrum language to value the participants’ named identities.

While this article explores level of outness and the coming-out process,the authors recognize that these terms likely vary in meanings and salien-cies within different communities and between individuals. When referringto “coming out” among queer-spectrum individuals, this language largelyrefers to their sexual identity disclosure (i.e., coming out as other than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

376 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

heterosexual). As most coming-out literature has concentrated on the expe-riences of queer-spectrum individuals, level of outness has more relevanceto queer-spectrum people. When referring to “coming out” among trans-spectrum individuals, this language largely refers to their gender identitydisclosure (i.e., coming out as other than cisgender2), as their process ofidentity development is more tied to the modification of their gender expres-sion and/or body modifications to present as their true gender identity(Rankin & Beemyn, 2012).

In recognizing the uniqueness in disclosing one’s sexual or gender iden-tity, scholars have started to consider the influence of other identities and theimpact of campus environments on one’s trans- and queer-spectrum identitydevelopment/disclosure. This article will examine the campus climate andits influence on sexual identity and gender identity disclosure.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Sexual Identity and Gender Identity Disclosure

Authors have devoted considerable attention to the coming-out process forlesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals that led to the development of sev-eral coming-out models in the literature (e.g., Cass, 1979, 1984; Chapman &Brannock, 1987; Coleman, 1982; Dank, 1971; Diamond, 2009; Fassinger &Arseneau, 2007; Isay, 1986; Kinnish, Strassberg, & Turner, 2005; Lee, 1977;Morris, 1997; Plummer, 1975; Rosario, Hunter, Maguen, Gwadz, & Smith,2001; Troiden, 1989; Weinberg, 1979; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994;Woodman & Lenna, 1980).

Martin (1991) outlined key features shared by many of these coming-out models: coming out is a developmental journey that spans many years;the process usually begins in childhood with feelings of being different; aperson coming out goes through various stages; and the process ends inconsolidation when a person no longer views him/her/hirself primarily interms of sexual orientation.

However useful these coming-out models are, there are certain limita-tions in applying these theoretical understandings to practical knowledge.With the exception of a few authors (Cass, 1984; Dank, 1971; McDonald,1982; Troiden, 1989), few researchers have tested their models throughempirical research (Cooper, 2008). Further, most of these models describea relatively linear process of identity formation and coming out (Rosario,Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Levy-Warren, 2009). Only recently have researchersstarted to examine the diversity of coming-out experiences (Floyd & Stein,2002; Maguen, Floyd, Bakeman, & Armistead, 2002; Morgan, 2013; Rust,1993; Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000).

There is little research examining gender identity disclosure (Bilodeau& Renn, 2005). Trans-spectrum people have no choice in whether they come

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 377

out as changing their name or modifying their physical body will make themknown to others. One recent study offered developmental milestones in thedevelopmental process for individuals identifying across the trans-spectrum(Beemyn & Rankin, 2011b). Using data from over 5,000 survey respondentsand 400 follow-up interviews, the authors uncovered eight milestones orsignificant life moments that many of the respondents in each group expe-rienced in common as they came to recognize and accept themselves astransgender. The milestones were (1) feeling gender different from a youngage; (2) seeking to present as a gender different from the one assignedto them at birth; (3) repressing or hiding their identity in the face of hos-tility and/or isolation; (4) initially misidentifying their identity; (5) learningabout and meeting other trans people; (6) changing their outward appear-ance to look more like their self-image; (7) establishing new relationshipswith family, partners, friends, and coworkers; and (8) developing a sense ofwholeness within a gender normative society.

In recognizing the uniqueness within the coming-out process, schol-ars have begun evaluating the varied influences of other identities andthe impact of college and university environments on one’s trans- andqueer-spectrum identity development.

Influence of Gender on Sexual Identity and Gender IdentityDisclosure

Several authors have documented the developmental difference based ongender in regard to the coming-out process (Diamond, 2009; Dubé & Savin-Williams, 1999). Specific models and studies have examined the culturaluniqueness among lesbian and bisexual women in mediating the decisionto disclose one’s sexual identity (Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Morris, 1997;Schneider, 2001), noting that the process is especially variable among women(Diamond, 2009; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995; Peplau & Garnets, 2000;Schneider, 2001). Other authors have examined gender expression, ratherthan gender identity alone, in seeking to understand the experiences thatmediate the coming-out process (Hiestand & Levitt, 2005; Levitt, Gerrish, &Hiestand, 2003; Levitt & Hiestand, 2004; Levitt & Horne, 2002). However,many studies examining level of outness based on gender do so withoutexamining the influences across genders. Most either look at one genderin isolation or examine gender only in a binary construct (e.g., men andwomen) and fall short in comparing the decision to disclose identities acrossthe gender spectrum.

Campus Experiences Associated With Coming Out

For traditionally aged students, college is a time for growth when individualscan critically question and develop their own identities (Chickering &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

378 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Perry, 1999). Not sur-prisingly, campus experiences can heavily influence this developmentalprocess (Astin, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Understanding thecollege/university context is particularly important for lesbian, gay, bisexual,transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students because it is often the context forcoming out (Evans & Broido, 1999).

Campus climate can have serious implications for LGB students’ sexu-ality disclosure (Evans & Rankin, 1989; Evans, 2001; Hall & Sandler, 1984).LGBTQ students often do not come out because of hostile campus climatesthey experience (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Rankin, 2003a; Rankin, Weber,Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). The process of coming out can be an espe-cially vulnerable time, during which discriminatory experiences can hinderthe development of a healthy LGBTQ identity (Blumstein & Schwartz, 2000;Bourassa & Shipton, 1991; D’Augelli, 1989; Gortmaker & Brown, 2006).An open and accepting climate in combination with available supports mayfacilitate the search and clarification of a self-identity. Defining one’s self-identity can help LGBTQ people integrate their sexual and gender identitieswithin other aspects of life.

Classroom Climate for LGBTQ Students

Lovaas, Baroudi, and Collins (2002) discussed that “issues dealing withgender and sexuality present special challenges for teachers and students,both when these subjects are the clearly marked focus of a course andwhen they arise in the midst of seemingly unrelated classroom discussions”(p. 178). Findings specific to the classroom climate for LGBTQ students aresimilar to reports of overall campus climate. Numerous scholars have docu-mented the negative experiences of LGBTQ college students in the classroom(Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Rankin, 2003b). These negative experiencesmay lead students to feel silenced and/or disengaged from the classroomdynamics (Evans, 2000; Renn, 2000). Students feel invisible and silenced asthey do not see their experiences or identities represented in coursework,classroom dialogue, or with faculty relationships (Connolly, 2000; Ellsworth,1989; Evans, 2000; Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Rankin, 2003a; Renn, 2000).Students also offered that they did not believe that LGB topics were ade-quately discussed in class or academic programs and “were afraid to disclosetheir identity in situations in which they felt the instructor might retaliate bygrading them lower, might make them ‘an object’ in class, or might patronizethem by giving them special treatment” (Lopez & Chims, 1993, p. 98).

There has been no recent attempt to synthesize information on LGBTstudies within higher education curricula, academic programs, or courses(Renn, 2010). Rankin (2003a) noted, “A heterosexist climate has not onlyinhibited the acknowledgement and expression of GLBT perspectives, it hasalso limited curricular initiatives and research efforts, as seen in the lack ofGLBT content in the university course offerings” (p. 3).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 379

Research on trans-spectrum students, though limited, suggests similarfindings (Bilodeau, 2005, 2009; Hart & Lester, 2011). The National Centerfor Transgender Equality (NCTE) released their 2011 report on nationaltransgender discrimination, documenting oppression against transgender andgender nonconforming Americans. Regarding discrimination in education,the report revealed that harassment among transgender and gender noncon-forming students was so severe that it led almost one sixth of respondentsto leave their schools.

Campus Resources Use Associated with Coming Out

Seeking out resources and services can also influence an LGBTQ person’scoming-out process (Egan, 2000; McKenna & Bargh, 1998; Tikkanen & Ross,2000). Identity-based spaces on campus, particularly sexuality and genderresource centers and offices, are critical places where LGBTQ students formtheir identities (Renn, 2010). Students who have come out are more likelyto visit resource centers, attend lesbian, gay, bisexual events, and engagein sexuality and gender political and social issues than closeted students(Gortmaker & Brown, 2006). In considering faculty and staff as resources,similar percentages of closeted and out students reported having a rolemodel. However, more out students than closeted students stated that theyhad a network of students to help navigate the campus culture, particularlywith identifying affirming instructors (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006).

While various authors have explored the coming-out process forLGBTQ people, and students in particular, few have taken a comprehen-sive approach to understand the decision. Nor have many studies soughtto understand the unique contexts within genders that mediate a student’slevel of outness. More useful would be a broad-reaching study to investi-gate the relationship between the decision to come out with experiencesand resources uses, specifically on a college campus. Examining particu-lar campus environmental influences across genders can illuminate specificinsights about the coming-out decision. As such, this study seeks to examinethe relationships between campus and classroom experiences and campusresources use with the coming-out decision among undergraduate studentswho identify across the queer- and trans-spectrum.

METHODS

Data Collection and Sample

Data for this study originate from Rankin et al.’s (2010) State of HigherEducation for LGBT People. Surveying over 5,000 students, faculty, staff,and administrators who identify across the trans- and queer-spectrum, thisreport is the most comprehensive national research study of its kind to date.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

380 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

Respondents represented all 50 states and all Carnegie Basic Classificationsof Institutions of Higher Education.

Of the 5,149 trans- and queer-spectrum people who participated in thestudy, all undergraduate student cases (n = 2,384, 46.30%) were selectedfor this analysis, eliminating outliers and students who did not satisfactorilycomplete pertinent items. For analysis purposes, the undergraduate studentcases were divided into separate groups: cisgender gay, bisexual, and queer(GBQ) men (n = 909, 38.1%); cisgender gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer(LGBQ) women (n = 1,242, 52.1%); and trans-spectrum students (n = 233,9.8%).

Study Constructs

The dependent variable, level of outness, was measured by a person’sresponse to a series of questions on the 2010 State of Higher Education,which assessed the degree to which a person disclosed his/her/hir sexualand/or gender identity in a variety of settings. These settings include beingout to friends, immediate family, extended family, and professionally. A com-posite score was created by summing all responses for the series of comingout questions, with totals ranging from 4 to 20. Higher scores correspondedwith higher degrees of outness.

A variety of factors were developed by the authors to represent majorconstructs related to campus and classroom experiences. Principal axisfactoring (PAF; Thurstone, 1935, 1945) was used to create these factors,with oblique rotation to improve the meaningfulness and interpretationof the extracted factors. Given the interrelatedness of the factors in thestudy, oblique rotation was selected. Specifically, the authors used Promaxrotation to obtain a solution that provided the best factor structure withthe lowest possible correlation among factors (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan,2003).Cronbach’s (1990) coefficient alphas were calculated to assess thereliability of factors.

Factors created for this study representing campus experiences includedcampus climate (α = .91), campus responses (α = .92), campus resourceimportance (α = .97), and campus resource use (α = .93). Factors related toclassroom experiences included classroom climate (α = .86) and curricularissues (α = .96). Appendix 1 lists each factor with its items and respectiveloading values.

Data Analyses

The authors first conducted initial tests of differences between cisgenderGBQ men, cisgender LGBQ women, and trans-spectrum undergraduate stu-dents across level of outness and campus/classroom experiences. As the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 381

measures were continuously scaled, a 1-way between-groups multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with Tukey post hoc analy-ses to reveal between-group differences. To better understand the influencesof identities and campus/classroom experiences on level of outness, theauthors entered gender identities and factors in blocks into a hierarchicalmultiple regression analysis, with level of outness serving as the dependentvariable.

RESULTS

Appendix 2 lists results from the MANOVA tests measuring differencesamong cisgender GBQ men, cisgender LGBQ women, and trans-spectrumstudents across level of outness and other factors. Regarding level of outness,cisgender LGBQ women (M = 11.06, SD = 4.55) reported higher levels ofoutness than cisgender GBQ men (M = 9.96, SD = 4.15) and trans-spectrumstudents (M = 9.72, SD = 4.19). There was no significant difference in levelof outness between cisgender GBQ men and trans-spectrum students. Bothcisgender GBQ men (M = −0.04, SD = 0.97) and cisgender LGBQ women(M = −0.01, SD = 0.93) had higher perceptions of campus climate thattrans-spectrum students (M = 0.23, SD = 1.04). Similarly, trans-spectrum stu-dents had significantly lower perceptions of classroom climate (M = 0.23,SD = 1.03) than both cisgener GBQ men (M = −0.06, SD = 0.95) andcisgender LGBQ women (M = 0.00, SD = 0.94). Regarding curricular issues,cisgender GBQ men had more positive perceptions of an inclusive curricu-lum (M = 0.12, SD = 0.96) than cisgender LGBQ women (M = −0.03, SD= 0.97), and cisgender LGBQ women had more positive perceptions of aninclusive curriculum than trans-spectrum students (M = −0.30, SD = 1.04).

For both campus responses and campus resource importance, therewere no significant differences among cisgender GBQ men, cisgender LGBQwomen, and trans-spectrum students. However, campus resource use hadstatistically different results across all three gender identity groups. Trans-spectrum students reported a significantly higher use of campus resources(M = 0.60, SD = 1.01), followed by cisgender GBQ men (M = 0.03, SD =0.97), and ending with cisgender LGBQ women (M = −0.12, SD = 0.93).

The hierarchical regression analysis model with all six factors and gen-der identities explained 14.4% of the variance in level of outness amongcisgender GBQ men, cisgender LGBQ women, and trans-spectrum students(p < 0.001). Identifying along the trans-spectrum significantly related tolower levels of outness (β = −3.106; p < 0.01), meaning that trans-spectrumstudents disclose their identities less than cisgender LGBQ women. Campusresponses (β = 0.843; p < 0.05) and campus resource importance (β = 0.881;p < 0.01) also significantly related to level of outness among participants.The more out a person is with his/her/hir sexual and/or gender identity,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

382 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

the poorer he/she/ze perceives the campus responses to sexual and gen-der identity issues. Additionally, the more a student is out with his/her/hirsexual and/or gender identity, the less important he/she/ze views campusresources. Appendix 3 summarizes these results.

DISCUSSION

Overall, cisgender LGBQ women reported higher levels of outness thancisgender GBQ men and trans-spectrum undergraduate students. As pre-viously discussed, few studies have empirically examined the coming-outexperiences across gender identities. Though prior scholars have demon-strated unique coming-out processes for cisgender LGBQ women (Diamond,2009; Kitzinger & Wilkingson, 1995; Peplau & Garnets, 2000; Schneider,2001), none have compared the levels of outness to cisgender women withother gender identities.

Schope (2002) discussed that trans- and queer-spectrum students mustweigh the costs and benefits of coming out across varying settings. Giventhat cisgender LGBQ women had the highest levels of outness, it may beinferred that these students have fewer costs to consider. Results found thatcisgender LGBQ women had high perceptions of campus climate and cur-riculum inclusivity than trans-spectrum students, and higher perceptions ofclassroom climate compared to trans-spectrum students and cisgender GBQmen. Thus, higher levels of outness likely relate to better campus and class-room experiences for cisgender LGBQ women, and perhaps fewer risks orcosts associated with coming out. Future studies should explore the influ-ence of campus experiences exclusively on cisgender LGBQ women’s levelsof outness to determine a more direct effect.

Of the significant results, the most troubling finding revealed that trans-spectrum students had the most negative perceptions of campus climate,classroom climate, and curriculum inclusivity compared to cisgender GBQmen and cisgender LGBQ women. Previous literature has demonstrated ahostile environment for trans-spectrum students in education (NCTE, 2011).Research on trans-spectrum students, though limited, suggests that a sig-nificantly higher proportion of these individuals experience harassmentcompared to cisgender queer-spectrum students (Rankin, 2004). Other morerecent researchers offer that the climate is less than welcoming for trans-spectrum youth (Bilodeau, 2009; Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Hart & Lester,2011). Though discouraging, these results provide empirical evidence forthe demonstrated need for supporting trans-spectrum students.

Negative classroom experiences lead trans- and queer-spectrum studentsto feel silenced and/or disengaged (Evans, 2000; Renn, 2000). It is thereforenot surprising that trans-spectrum students reported significantly lower per-ceptions of classroom climate and curriculum inclusivity. When students feel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 383

invisible and/or silenced, they are less likely to disclose and discuss theiridentities in class (Lopez & Chims, 1993). Rankin (2003a) discussed that aheterosexist classroom climate has inhibited diverse perspectives. Findingsfrom this study reveal a cisgender-centric classroom climate that damagestrans-inclusivity and affirmation.

Previous research has demonstrated that a hostile climate may hinderthe coming-out process (Gortmaker & Brown, 2006; Rankin, 2003a; Rankin,Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). Considering the low perceptions ofcampus and classroom climate and lower levels of outness for trans-spectrumstudents, future studies should examine the relationship of these variablesexclusively for trans-spectrum. Not surprisingly, trans-spectrum students alsoreported the highest use of campus resources, followed by cisgender GBQmen. With such negative and hostile campus and classroom environments,it is expected that trans-spectrum students would most highly use campusresources.

Results from the hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed sev-eral campus experiences that significantly related to level of outness. Higherlevels of outness significantly related to poorer perceptions of campusresponses and lower importance of campus resources for trans- and queer-spectrum students. Though students with higher levels of outness are morelikely to use campus resources, they are also more likely to have a networkof students to help navigate the campus and classroom climate (Gortmaker &Brown, 2006). Interestingly, our findings revealed that though resource usemay increase with higher levels of outness, the importance of such resourcesmay diminish. This is likely due to additional supports (e.g., peers) thatstudents have as they increasingly come out.

IMPLICATIONS

Most broadly, this study demonstrated the varied coming-out experiencesacross gender identities and campus experiences that influence this pro-cess. Sexual and gender identities are fluid and evolving, particularly fortraditionally aged college and university students. For many trans- and queer-spectrum individuals, their undergraduate experience is often the placewhere they disclose their sexual and gender minority identities to others(Evans, 2001; Evans & Broido, 2002). Colleges and university should beaffirming and supportive places for students to explore their sexual andgender identities. Those who experience a welcoming and affirming cli-mate are more likely to yield positive academic and developmental outcomes(Milem, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rankin, 2004; Reason, Terenzini,& Domingo, 2006; Umbach & Kuh, 2006).

As revealed in this study, there is a discrepancy in level of outnesswhen comparing cisgender LGBQ women to cisgender GBQ men and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

384 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

trans-spectrum students. Faculty and staff should recognize the difficultieswithin gender identity groups for students disclosing their trans- andqueer-spectrum identities. Targeted resources for specific communities (e.g.,cisgender GBQ men and trans-spectrum students) may mitigate the dif-ferences in identity disclosure. Specifically, LGBTQ-specific campus areasshould become more appealing and inviting for men and transgender/gender nonconforming students. Offices should first discover if and whythese constituents are not comfortable in their space and what they can doto alleviate the tension.

The National Center for Transgender Equality released their 2011 reporton national transgender discrimination, documenting oppression againsttransgender and gender nonconforming Americans. Regarding discrimina-tion in education, the report revealed that harassment among transgenderand gender nonconforming students was so severe that it led almostone sixth of respondents to leave their schools. This study examiningoutness across gender identities revealed differences that have paramountimplications for trans-spectrum students. First and foremost is the impor-tance of a welcoming and affirming campus and classroom climate fortrans-spectrum students. Instructors across disciplines may create a morewelcoming classroom for all individuals by incorporating readings fromauthors with diverse perspectives and identities. Reading and discussingscholarship by trans- and queer-spectrum authors can be both empow-ering and affirming for all students. Further, faculty can demonstrate anaffirming climate for trans-spectrum students by using language that isinclusive of all genders. Instructors should respect a student’s requests touse gender pronouns of his/her/hir preference and should also addressstudents by their preferred names, regardless of what official recordsindicate.

Educators and staff must facilitate and foster a classroom climate thatencourages and supports the coming-out process for trans- and queer-spectrum students. Instructors can be more vocally affirming in the classroomby highlighting campus resources for students, including student organiza-tions, counseling and mental health services, and peer support groups. Whilemost syllabi have nondiscrimination policies included, faculty may want tospecifically mention that their classroom space is affirming and welcomingfor people of all social identities, including trans-spectrum students.

Among trans- and queer-spectrum students, higher levels of outnesssignificantly related to negative perceptions of campus responses and cam-pus resource importance. LGBTQ resource centers must first discover whythese groups of students have such negative perceptions, and then work toimprove the relationships with trans- and queer-spectrum students and thecenters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 385

CONCLUSION

What researchers know about the coming-out process is limited, especiallywhen considering its relationship to campus experience and outside ofcisgendered contexts. This study examined specific campus experiences andtheir influence on the coming-out decision among trans- and queer-spectrumundergraduate students. Such insights are invaluable for the developmentand growth of students and will assist practitioners in understanding how tobest serve individuals through the coming-out process.

NOTES

1. The authors have consciously chosen to use the terms trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum todescribe gender and sexual minority individuals, and will justify their reasoning in later sections of thearticle.

2. A cisgender person is someone who by nature or by choice conforms to gender/sex basedsocietal expectations (UC Berkeley Gender Equity Resource Center, 2012).

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1991). The American College Teacher. National norms for the1989–90 HERI Faculty Survey: ERIC.

Beemyn, B. (2003). Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal ofGay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(1), 33–50.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011a). Introduction to the special issue on “LGBTQCampus Experiences.” Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1159–1164.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011b). Lives of transgender people. New York, NY:Columbia University Press.

Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgenderstudents at a midwestern research unviersity. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issuesin Education, 3, 29–44.

Bilodeau, B. (2009). Genderism: Transgender students, binary systems and highereducation. Saarbrücken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Müller.

Bilodeau, B., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development modelsand implications for practice. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Sexual orientation and genderidentity: New directions for student services (vol. 111, pp. 25–40). San Francisco,CA: Josey-Bass.

Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (2000). Bisexuality: Some social psychological issues.In P. C. R. Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the United States (pp. 339–351). New York,NY: Columbia University Press.

Bourassa, D., & Shipton, B. (1991). Addressing lesbian and gay issues in residencehall environments. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, les-bians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 79–96). Alexandria, VA: American CollegePersonnel Association.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal ofHomosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

386 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model.Journal of Sex Research, 20, 143–167.

Chapman, B. E., & Brannock, J. C. (1987). Proposed model of lesbian identitydevelopment: An empirical examination. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(3–4),69–80.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd. ed.). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal ofHomosexuality, 7(2–3), 31–43.

Connolly, M. (2000). Issues for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students in traditionalcollege classrooms. In V. A. Wall & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Towards acceptance:Sexual orientation issues on campus (pp. 109–130). Lanham, MD: AmericanCollege Personnel Association.

Cooper, L. (2008). On the other side: Supporting sexual minority students. BritishJournal of Guidance & Counselling, 36 , 425–440.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of discriminationand harassment in a university community. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 17 , 317–321.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Gay men in college: Identity processes and adaptations.Journal of College Student Development, 32, 140–146.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a modelof lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D.Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dank, B. M. (1971). Coming out in the gay world. Psychiatry, 34, 180–197.Diamond, L. M. (2009). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire.

Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Dubé, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among

ethnic sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1389.Egan, J. (2000, December 10). Lonely gay teen seeking same. New York Times

Magazine, p. 110.Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repres-

sive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324.Evans, N., & Broido, E. (1999). Coming out in college residence halls: Negotiation,

meaning making, challenges, supports. Journal of College Student Development,40, 658–668.

Evans, N., & Rankin, S. (1989). Heterosexism and campus violence. In A. Hoffman, J.Schuh, & R. Fenske (Eds.), Violence on campus: Defining the problems, strategiesfor action (pp. 169–186). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Evans, N. J. (2000). Creating a positive learning environment for gay, lesbian, andbisexual students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(82), 81–87.

Evans, N. J. (2001). The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in universitycommunities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisex-ual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 181–198). New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). ‘I’d rather get wet than be under thatumbrella’: Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisex-ual, and transgender people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 387

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisex-ual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 19–49). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Floyd, F. J., & Stein, T. S. (2002). Sexual orientation identity formation among gay, les-bian, and bisexual youths: Multiple patterns of milestone experiences. Journalof Research on Adolescence, 12, 167–191.

Gortmaker, V., & Brown, R. (2006). Out of the closet: Differences in perceptions andexperiences among out lesbian and gay students. College Student Journal, 40,606–619.

Hall, R., & Sandler, R. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly campus climate forwomen? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Hart, J., & Lester, J. (2011). Starring students: Gender performance at a women’scollege. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 4, 193–217.

Hiestand, K. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2005). Butch identity development: The formationof an authentic gender. Feminism & Psychology, 15(1), 61–85.

Isay, R. A. (1986). The development of homosexual identity in men. PsychoanalyticStudy of the Child, 41, 467–490.

Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in theflexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(2), 10. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9

Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism:The discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology, 31,9. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.95

Lee, J. A. (1977). Going public: A study in the sociology of homosexual liberation.Journal of Homosexuality, 3(1), 49–74.

Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: Amodel of modern femme identity. Sex Roles, 48, 99–113.

Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2004). A quest for authenticity: Contemporary butchgender. Sex Roles, 50, 605–621.

Levitt, H. M., & Horne, S. G. (2002). Explorations of lesbian-queer genders: Butch,femme, androgynous or “other.” Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 25–39.

Lopez, G., & Chims, N. (1993). Classroom concerns of gay and lesbian students: Theinvisible minority. College Teaching, 41(3), 97–103.

Lovaas, K. E., Baroudi, L., & Collins, S. (2002). Trans cending heteronormativity inthe classroom: Using queer and critical pedagogies to alleviate trans-anxieties.Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6 , 177–189.

Maguen, S., Floyd, F. J., Bakeman, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Developmental mile-stones and disclosure of sexual orientation among gay, lesbian, and bisexualyouths. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 219–233.

Martin, H. P. (1991). The coming-out process for homosexuals. Hospital CommunityPsychiatry, 42, 158–162.

McDonald, G. J. (1982). Individual differences in the coming out process for gaymen: Implications for theoretical minds. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(1), 47–60.

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity“demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75(3), 681–694.

Milem, J. F. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiplesectors. In M. J. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling interest:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

388 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in higher education (pp. 126–169).Stanford, CA: Stanford Press.

Morgan, E. M. (2013). Contemporary issues in sexual orientation and iden-tity development in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 52–66.doi:10.1177/2167696812469187

Morris, J. F. (1997). Lesbian coming out as a multidimensional process. Journal ofHomosexuality, 33(2), 1–22.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings andinsights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decadeof research (vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women’ssexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 330–350.

Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the collegeyears: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Pett, A., Lackey, N. M., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis:The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London, England:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rankin, S. (2003a). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender peo-ple: A national perspective. New York, NY: National Gay and Lesbian Task ForcePolicy Institute.

Rankin, S. (2003b). Campus climate for sexual minorities: A national perspective.New York, NY: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Rankin, S., & Beemyn, G. (2012). Beyond a binary: The lives of gender-nonconforming youth. About Campus, 17(4), 2–10. doi:10.1002/abc.21086

Rankin, S. R., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, M. S. (2010). 2010 State of highereducation for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developingacademic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education,47(2), 149–175.

Renn, K. A. (2000). Including all voices in the classroom: Teaching lesbian, gay, andbisexual students. College Teaching, 48, 129–135.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: Thestate and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39, 132–141.doi:10.3102/0013189X10362579

Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The coming-outprocess and its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian,and bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journalof Community Psychology, 29, 133–160.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are there butch/femmedifferences in sexual identity development? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1),34–49.

Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identityformation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7(1), 50–77.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 389

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories amongsexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,607–627.

Schneider, M. S. (2001). Toward a reconceptualization of the coming-out processfor adolescent females. In A. R. D. A. C. J. Patterson (Ed.), Lesbian, gay, andbisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 71–96). New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the disclosure of sexualorientation by gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(1), 1–22.

Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind: Multiple-factor analysis for the isolationof primary traits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Thurstone, L. L. (1945). The prediction of choice. Psychometrika, 10, 237–253.Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. W. (2000). Looking for sexual compatibility: Experiences

among Swedish men in visiting Internet gay chat rooms. CyberPsychology &Behavior, 3, 605–616.

Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal ofHomosexuality, 17(1/2), 43–73.

UC Berkeley Gender Equity Resource Center. (2013, July 19). Definition of terms.Retrieved from http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms

Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberalarts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education,77 , 169–192.

Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction:Understanding bisexuality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Weinberg, T. S. (1979). On” doing” and” being” gay: Sexual behavior and homosex-ual male self-identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 143–168.

Woodman, N. J., & Lenna, H. R. (1980). Counseling with gay men and women: Aguide for facilitating positive life-styles. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

APPENDIX 1

Principal Axis Factoring and Coefficient Alphas

Item LoadingCronbach’s

Alpha Notes

Campus Climate α = .91 low score is positivecampus climate, highscore is negativecampus climate

Overall comfort with campus climate .67Campus climate dimension: friendliness .79Campus climate dimension: concern .62Campus climate dimension: cooperation .79Campus climate dimension: improvement .66Campus climate dimension: welcoming .84Campus climate dimension: respect .79Campus climate positive for LGBT people .79

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

390 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Item LoadingCronbach’s

Alpha Notes

Classroom Climate α = .86 low score is positiveclassroom climate,high score is negativeclassroom climate

Perceived safety in classroom buildings .50Overall comfort with classroom climate .61Classroom climate welcoming for women

who are GLBQ.86

Classroom climate welcoming for men whoare GBQ

.92

Classroom climate welcoming for peoplewho are gender variant

.82

Curricular Issues α = .96 low score isgood/inclusivecurriculum, high scoreis bad/non-inclusivecurriculum

Classes include authors identified as womanloving woman

.75

Classes include lesbian issues in classlectures

.83

Classes include readings about lesbian issues .87Classes include authors identified as man

loving man.71

Classes include gay male issues in classlectures

.79

Classes include readings about gay maleissues

.82

Classes include authors identified as bisexual .71Classes include bisexual issues in class

lectures.81

Classes include readings about bisexualissues

.81

Classes include authors identified as gendervariant

.77

Classes include gender variant issues in classlectures

.84

Classes include readings about gendervariant issues

.84

Classes include readings abouthomophobia/heterosexism

.78

Classes include non-heterosexist language .68

Campus Responses α = .92 low score is goodcampus response,high score is badcampus response

General education requirements includeLGBTQ people

.53

Departmental curriculum includes LGBTQpeople

.62

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Level of Outness 391

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Item LoadingCronbach’s

Alpha Notes

Academic dean/unit head supports sexualidentity issues/concerns

.78

Department head/direct supervisor supportssexual identity issues/concerns

.86

Faculty support sexual identityissues/concerns

.78

Academic dean/unit head supports genderidentity/expression issues/concerns

.82

Department head/direct supervisor supportsgender identity/expressionissues/concerns

.90

Faculty support gender identity/expressionissues/concerns

.83

Campus Resource Importance α = .97 low score is veryimportant, high scoreis not important

Bisexual/Fluid group .63Career programs focusing on LGBT issues .71Educational LGBT workshops including .78LGBT counseling/support groups .76LGBT-focused sexuality workshops .78LGBT-focused health and wellness

education workshops.77

LGBT-focused leadership training .77LGBT-focused websites .77LGBT-focused Listservs .71LGBT lending library .70LGBT peer educators .81LGBT People of Color groups .77LGBT Mentor Program .78LGBT-themed educational lectures .77LGBT-themed social events .76LGBT-themed events in the residence halls .73LGBT sub-committee for student health .75LGBT undergraduate student group(s) .79On-line Coming Out Support Group .74Political/Social Awareness events .79Programming for Allies .80Topical discussions on LGBT-related issues .82Social group for LBTQ Women .81Social group for GBTQ Men .80Transgender group .80

Campus Resource Use α = .93 low score is low use,high score is high use

LGBTQ faculty/staff known .54LGBTQ students known .60Walked into the Office of LGBTQ Student

Services.88

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

392 J. C. Garvey and S. R. Rankin

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Item LoadingCronbach’s

Alpha Notes

Made telephone, instant message, or e-mailcontact with LGBTQ Office staff

.80

Attended a meeting of an LGBTQorganization on campus

.84

Attended an LGBTQ or Allies-focused eventor program

.86

Read e-mail updates from LGBTQ StudentServices

.70

Visited the LGBTQ Student Services website .71Used the LGBTQ Student Services library

and lounge.84

Requested resources/referrals from LGBTQStudent Services

.69

APPENDIX 2

Differences Among Cisgender GBQ Men, Cisgender LGBQ Women,and Trans-Spectrum Students

Total

CisgenderGBQ

Men (1)

CisgenderLGBQ

Women (2)

Trans-Spectrum

Students (3)

M SD M SD M SD M SD Post hoc

Level of Outness 10.50 4.40 9.96 4.15 11.06 4.55 9.72 4.19 2 > 1, 3Campus Climate 0.00 0.96 −0.04 0.97 −0.01 0.93 0.23 1.04 1, 2 > 3Classroom

Climate0.00 0.96 −0.06 0.95 0.00 0.94 0.23 1.03 1, 2 > 3

Curricular Issues 0.00 0.98 0.12 0.96 −0.03 0.97 −0.30 1.04 1 > 2 > 3Campus

Responses0.00 0.97 0.01 0.96 −0.03 0.96 0.08 1.04 1 = 2 = 3

Campus ResourceImportance

0.00 0.99 0.11 1.03 −0.06 0.95 −0.15 0.93 1 = 2 = 3

Campus ResourceUse

0.00 0.97 0.03 0.97 −0.12 0.93 0.60 1.01 3 > 1 > 2

Note. The numbers in parentheses in column heads refer to the numbers used for illustrating significantdifferences in the “Post hoc” column.D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Ala

bam

a at

Tus

calo

osa]

at 0

8:34

18

Febr

uary

201

5

Level of Outness 393

APPENDIX 3

Level of Outness Regression Analysis

Variable ß ß

Cisgender GBQ Men −0.696 −0.449Trans-SpectrumStudents

−2.779∗∗ −3.106∗∗

Campus Climate 0.210Classroom Climate 0.678Curricular Issues −0.208Campus Responses 0.843∗Campus ResourceImportance

0.881∗∗

Campus ResourceUse

−0.393

R2 0.026 0.144F 2.837 4.386∗∗∗

Note. Women served as referece group for gender identity.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

laba

ma

at T

usca

loos

a] a

t 08:

34 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015