98
Figure 4.3. CTOC participants’ preferred pronouns for use in research results.
This sample ranged in age from 18 to 45 years old, with an average age of 29.8 (SD = 8.42) and a median age of 29.5 years old (see Figure 4.4). The most common age was 20. Two-thirds (70%, n = 21) of participants identified as White, 16.7% (n = 5) identified as Latino/a (including those who identified as both White and Latino/a), 6.7% (n = 2) selected “Other” and wrote in Jewish, and 6.7% (n = 2) identified with some other race/ethnic identity or with multiple identities (see Figure 4.5).
She/her, or generally prefers feminine 30% He/him, or generally prefers masculine 46.7% Gender neutral 6.7% Combination 3.3% No Preference 10% Tries to avoid pronoun preferences 3.3%
Preferred Pronouns (n = 30)
99
Figure 4.4. Age distribution of CTOC sample, overlaid with normal distribution curve.
Figure 4.5. Racial/ethnic identities of CTOC participants.
White 70% Latino/a (including White + Latino) 16.7% Jewish 6.7% Other combination of race/ ethnicity 6.7%
Race/ethnicity (n = 30)
100
Interviewers did not collect information about participants’ physical/mental abilities, socioeconomic status, current housing situation, employment status, or
education levels (although there was a lot of indirect discussion during the interviews of current and previous education). Ten different college/university campuses in Colorado were represented in this sample. To determine information about participants’ urbanicity, campuses were classified into the four categories of Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA 2.0) designations used by the Census based on their location—urban, large rural town, small rural town, and isolated small rural town17. All 30 (100%) of participants were affiliated with campuses classified as urban using the RUCA designations (Rural Health Research Center, n.d.). The represented campuses ranged in size from having fewer than 2,000 students to over 20,000 students. Thirty percent (n = 3) of the campuses were private colleges and universities, while the other 70% (n = 7) were public
institutions. Eighty percent (n = 8) of these campuses were four-year institutions, while 20% (n = 2) were two-year institutions.
Over half of the sample (63.3%, n = 19) were students, 10% (n = 3) were faculty, 10% (n = 3) were staff, and 16.7% (n = 5) were in multiple roles on campus (see Figure
4.6). Two-thirds of participants (n = 20) were on campus full-time, 20% (n = 6) were
part-time, and 13.3% (n = 4) were in a combination of full-time and part-time campus roles. Length of time affiliated with a campus ranged from only one month to more than
17 Some accuracy is lost by classifying participants’ by their campuses rather than the zip code of their
101
eight years. Participants represented a multitude of on-campus departments18 and offices: 33.3% (n = 10) were affiliated with social sciences, 30% (n = 9) in administration
(registrar’s office, student services, multicultural office, etc.), 26.7% (n = 8) in
professions and applied sciences (which would include social work), 13.3% (n = 4) in humanities departments and 10% (n = 3) in the natural sciences or other/unknown departments. One-third (n = 10) of participants were affiliated with multiple departments or offices on campus.
Figure 4.6. Percentage of CTOC participants in different campus roles.
NCTE/Task Force Sample. The NCTE/Task Force research team conducted an initial data cleaning process that resulted in a final sample size of N = 6,456 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. The sample includes people from all 50 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico (Grant et al., 2011).
18 Department classification was determined by referencing this website as of July, 2011:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines Faculty 10% Staff 10% Student 63% Multiple 17%
Role (n = 30)
102
Based on an analysis of participants’ reported sex assigned at birth, current gender, and how much they said various gender terms (transgender, MTF, etc.) applied to them, participants were grouped into six possible gender identity categories by these two organizations as part of the data cleaning process. Almost half (46.7%, n = 3,005) of the sample was MTF transgender, 27.6% (n = 1,776) were FTM transgender, 10.9% (n = 702) were male to cross dress female, 9.3% (n = 597) were female to other/gender non-
conforming/part time, 3.0% (n = 192) were female to cross dress male, and 2.6% (n = 169) were male to other/gender non-conforming/part time. See Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7. Gender identity distribution of NCTE/Task Force sample.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 83, with an average age of 36.73 (SD = 13.05), a median age of 33, and a mode of 27. See Figure 4.8.
Just over three-fourths (76%, n = 4,872) of this sample were White, 12.6% (n = 806) were multiracial or mixed race, 4.5% (n = 290) were Black or African American,
FTM 27% MTF 47% Male to Cross Dress Female 11% Female to Cross Dress Male 3% Male to Other 3% Female to Other 9%
NTDS: Gender Identity
(n = 6,441)
103
3.4% (n = 217) were Hispanic or Latino, 2.1% (n = 137) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.3% (n = 82) were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.1% (n = 5) were Arab or Middle Eastern. Using the RUCA 2.0 designations of the Census, 90.2% (n = 5,554) lived in urban areas, 5.6% (n = 347) lived in large rural towns, 2.2% (n = 138) lived in small rural towns, and 1.9% (n = 117) lived in isolated small rural towns. Almost one- third (29.5%, n = 1,886) of the sample reported having a physical, learning, or mental disability (not including gender-related mental health diagnoses). In terms of sexual orientation, 23.7% (n = 1,492) identified as bisexual, 23.5% (n = 1,477)
Figure 4.8. Age distribution of NCTE/Task Force sample, overlaid with normal
104
identified as queer, pansexual, or otherwise other non-binary attracted, 23.1% (n = 1,453) identified as heterosexual, 23.1% (n = 1,452) identified as gay, lesbian, or same-gender attracted, 4.5% (n = 283) identified as asexual, and 2.1% (n = 132) identified as having some other sexual orientation.
Participants were asked about their current gross annual household income before taxes; answers covered the full range of 14 options given—from “Less than $10,000” to “More than $250,000.” The most common answer was “Less than $10,000” (15.1%, n = 944), the average response was approximately “$40,000-$49,999,” and the median response was “$30,000-$39,999” per year. See Figure 4.9 for a display of the sample’s income distribution. The unemployment rate for this sample was 13.6%19. Level of education ranged from “Elementary and/or Junior High” to “Doctorate Degree.” The most common level of educational attainment in the sample was a bachelor’s degree (27.2%, n = 1,745), followed by more than one year of college but no degree (19.7%, n = 1,263), a master’s degree (13.4%, n = 859), and a high school diploma/GED (8.4%, n = 540). The distribution of responses for educational attainment is displayed in Figure 4.10.
19 This rate was calculated to based upon those who were (a) in the workforce or (b) were unemployed but
105
Figure 4.9. Distribution of annual household income among NCTE/Task Force sample.
Figure 4.10. Distribution of educational attainment among the NCTE/Task Force sample.
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%