1

Higher Education Student Affairs Theory Proposal: Model of Gender Variant Identity

Development

Collin Hill

Higher Education Student Affairs Program, Western Carolina University

HESA 621: Theories of College Student Development

Dr. April Perry

January 18, 2022

Higher Education Student Affairs Theory Proposal: Model of Gender Variant Identity

Development

Gender identity development is a complicated process and how individuals come to

understand their gender identity can include a variety of experiences. According to Katz-Wise et

al. (2017), “gender identity is a multidimensional construct that includes an individual’s

knowledge of belonging in a gender category, experienced compatibility with that particular

category, felt pressure to conform, and attitudes towards gender groups” (p. 245). Broadly,

gender is a social construct based on widely accepted ideas of what it means to be male and

female (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). Transgender is an umbrella term used to refer to “individuals

whose gender presentation is so different from ideals for the sex assigned to them at birth that it

defies traditional notions of what it means to be male or female” (Levitt & Ippolito, 2017, p.

1728). College is often a time where individuals can explore their gender identities more freely,

allowing for an increased sense of knowledge about one’s own perception of their gender (Patton

et al., 2016). As student affairs professionals, it is crucial that we understand how to best serve

our trans and non-binary students and recognize the stages of gender identity development our

students may be experiencing.

Historically, little value has been placed on understanding the development of

transgender people, including students. While this body of literature is growing, it is difficult to

keep up with the everchanging categorization of genders through evolving labels and language

(Patton et al., 2016). For these reasons, it is important to explore the theories we use in student

affairs practices and update them with new research being conducted about minoritized

identities. In this vein, I would like to propose a theory that uses both Bilodeau’s Transgender

Identity Development Model and Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses to incorporate new language,
3

experiences, and norms to what I consider to be an outdated understanding of transgender

identity development.

Theoretical Foundation

In 2005, Bilodeau conducted a case study of two transgender students at a midwestern

university. Bilodeau used D’Augelli’s Lifespan Model of Sexual Orientation Identity

Development to examine gender identity and create a model specific to transgender identity

development (Bilodeau, 2005). In its current state, Bilodeau’s Transgender Identity Development

Model has six processes. These processes are exiting a traditionally gendered identity,

developing a personal transgender identity, developing a transgender social identity, becoming a

transgender offspring, developing a transgender intimacy status, and entering a transgender

community (Patton et al., 2016). The first process “involves recognizing and naming one’s

gendered experiences.” (Bilodeau, 2005, p. 33). This could also include coming out to others. In

process two, developing a personal transgender identity involves learning about one’s

transgender identity in relation to others (p. 35). The third process, developing a social identity

involves creating a support network of people who are accepting of one’s gender identity (p. 36).

Becoming a transgender offspring involves the complicating of familial relationships when one

comes out as transgender (p. 38). In process five, one forms intimate physical and emotional

relationships (p. 39). In the last process, one develops a commitment to social change and

challenging social barriers (p. 40).

Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses focus on the identity versus identity diffusion stages of

development in young adults (Patton et al., 2016). The two main variables for identity formation

are exploration, which includes questioning what has been defined by authority figures and

considering other identity alternatives, and commitment, which includes confidently owning
4

choices, values, and identities (Patton et al., 2016). The four statuses include foreclosure,

moratorium, identity achievement, and diffusion. In foreclosure, individuals have accepted the

path that was laid out for them and have done little exploration before committing. In

moratorium, individuals explore to form their identity but make little commitment. They might

be struggling with conforming to or breaking away from authority. Identity achievement occurs

when individuals have made choices after exploration and have formed a secure identity and

strong foundations. Lastly, diffusion occurs when there is little exploration and little

commitment, meaning individuals conform with little questioning due to lack of interest or

personal accountability.

Critique and Gaps in Literature

While gender identity has received attention in the past, mostly to include women’s

identity development, there is significantly less research focusing on transgender identity and

specifically how college students experience their gender. This remains especially true for those

falling outside of traditional binary transgender identities. Literature that exists on transgender

identities often includes or centers sexuality. For example, Bilodeau (2005) developed his

Transgender Identity Model exclusively from a theory that focuses on sexual identity

development, using the same processes. Sexuality and gender have often been studied

simultaneously and are often conflated, leading to less clear research specifically regarding

gender identity development (Chaudry, 2019). Additionally, Bilodeau’s theory was created from

only the experiences of two trans students from one midwestern university. This extremely small

sample excludes the experiences of many transgender, gender nonconforming, and non-binary

individuals.
5

In his processes, Bilodeau did not account for any exploration stage, with the first process

being an exit from a traditionally gendered identity and coming out (Patton et al., 2016).

However, other transgender identity theories do account for this exploration, including Devor’s

(2004) Transsexual Identity Formation Model, which includes abiding anxiety and identity

confusion as the first stages. Bilodeau’s stages also follow an outdated assumption that coming

out is a traumatic and disruptive event, or that one has to come out at all to achieve their

transgender identity. It is necessary for a model to incorporate all of these experiences which

have been excluded previously to account for the variety of transgender identities.

Theory Proposal

Using Bilodeau’s Transgender Identity Development Model and Marcia’s Ego Identity

Statuses, I propose a model of gender identity development inclusive of binary transgender,

gender non-conforming, non-binary, and genderfluid individuals. This is a five stage Model of

Gender Variant Identity Development. It, like Bilodeau’s, does not have to be a sequential

model, and individuals can move in and out of the stages. This non-sequential model allows for

individuals to continue the life-long process of gender identity exploration and development. The

stages include (1) gender identity confusion, (2) gender identity exploration, (3) gender identity

comparison, (4) gender identity achievement, and (5) gender identity pride.

Figure 1

Model of Gender Variant Identity Development

In the first stage, individuals feel a sense of malalignment with the gender that they were

assigned at birth. This can be evidenced by Levitt and Ippolito’s (2014) findings:

Many participants described their childhoods as a time wrought with confusion because

they did not understand why adults (i.e., family members and teachers) were treating

them as someone with the expected characteristics of their birth sex and pressuring them

to behave in accordance with those assumptions (p. 1737).

While some may act on this confusion, others may find themselves accepting the norms and rules

that have been expected of them, remaining in a foreclosure status. However, those who act on

their confusion may find themselves challenging the status quo and in a stage of exploration.

Exploration leads individuals to seek out resources as well as advice from individuals who might

be like them (Patton et al., 2016). It is in this exploration stage that I connect Marcia’s

moratorium identity status. There is a desire for trans individuals to accept this new identity, but

there is also an aspect of fear and internalized transphobia that needs to be grappled with (Levitt

& Ippolito, 2014). In this crucial exploration stage students might begin spending time around

LGBTQ+ resource centers, inquire about gender-inclusive housing, connect with other trans

peers over the internet, or seek out queer spaces on campus (Meyer & Leonardi, 2017).

In stage three, gender identity comparison, individuals might look to see how others are

expressing their genders and find comfort in language that can express how they feel (Bilodeau,

2005). This can be as simple as knowing that there are trans spaces on campus where students

can be in community with each other. This stage also includes forming a support network based

on reciprocal relationships between transgender individuals. Stage four, gender identity

achievement, involves forming a confident transgender identity, however that may look to the

individual. Borrowing again from Marcia, this stage expresses a series of explorations that have
7

led to a clear sense of what one’s gender is in that time. Similar to Bilodeau’s process five,

students in this stage might create intimate physical and emotional relationships and disclose

their identities at their comfort levels. The fifth stage in this model marks a formation of gender

identity pride. Pride can include developing a role in activism, whether that be on-campus or off-

campus advocacy (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). This could also involve students taking on

leadership roles in trans organizations or creating content about trans rights.

Conclusion

As evidenced through this analysis, gender identity development is a complex and

multifaceted process. We live in a highly gendered society that values conformity to gendered

expectations and roles. As student affairs professionals, it is important that we can recognize and

understand gender variant students and their journeys through their identity development. In an

effort to be inclusive of all gender variant and non-conforming identities, I introduced a Model of

Gender Variant Identity Development. This model has five stages that individuals move in and

out of, not necessarily in sequence. The model focuses on students and includes a confusion and

exploration stage which were lacking in previous models. In the future, this model could benefit

from further research involving a large sample size and a variety of gender identities in the study.
8

References

Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender students at a

midwestern research university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 29–

44. https://doi.org/10.1300/j367v03n01_05

Chaudhry, V. V. (2019). Centering the “evil twin.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,

25(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-7275278

Devor, A. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen stage model of transsexual identity

formation. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 8(1), 41–67.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2004.9962366

Katz-Wise, S. L., Budge, S. L., Fugate, E., Flanagan, K., Touloumtzis, C., Rood, B., Perez-

Brumer, A., & Leibowitz, S. (2017). Transactional pathways of transgender identity

development in transgender and gender-nonconforming youth and caregiver perspectives

from the trans youth family study. International Journal of Transgenderism, 18(3), 243–

263. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2017.1304312

Levitt, H. M., & Ippolito, M. R. (2014). Being transgender: The experience of transgender

identity development. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(12), 1727–1758.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.951262

Meyer, E. J., & Leonardi, B. (2017). Teachers’ professional learning to affirm transgender, non-

binary, and gender-creative youth: Experiences and recommendations from the field. Sex

Education, 18(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1411254

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., Quaye, S. J., Forney, D. S., & Evans, N. J. (2016).

Gender and gender identity development. In Student development in college: Theory,

research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 175–195). Jossey-Bass.