ATTITUDES TOWARD TRANS YOUTH SCALE: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION

by

JENNIFER M. BIRNKRANT, M.A.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Psychological Sciences

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

August, 2018

2

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Jennifer M. Birnkrant

candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy*.

Committee Chair

Amy Przeworski, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Julie Exline, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Arin Connell, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Matthew Garrett, Ph.D.

Date of Defense

March 28, 2018

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained

for any proprietary material contained therein.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………… 6

Overview………………………………………………………………………. 7

Victimization Experiences of Trans Youth……………………………………. 7

Stigma Toward Sexual & Gender Minorities…………………………………. 10

Attitudes Toward Trans Individuals…………………………………………… 11

Previously Developed Measures of Attitudes Toward Trans Individuals…….. 13

Psychological Functioning in Gender Diverse Youth………………………… 16

Study Overview and Hypotheses……………………………………………… 18

Methods……………………………………………………………………….. 27

Participants & Procedure……………………………………………… 27

Measures……………………………………………………………… 28

Results………………………………………………………………………… 33

Parent Sample Findings………………………………………………. 33

Teacher Sample Findings…………………………………………….. 42

Discussion……………………………………………………………………. 45

Tables………………………………………………………………………… 57

Appendix…………………………………………………………………… .. 70

References……………………………………………………………………. 102

4

List of Tables

Table 1. Parent Demographics……………………………………………………….. 57

Table 2. Continuous Variable Descriptive Statistics: Parent Sample………………... 59

Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Eigenvalues and Variance Explained… 60

Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Final Items and Factor Loadings……………. 61

Table 5. Intercorrelations among ATTYS Full Scale and Subscales……………….. 63

Table 6. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of ATTYS and Subscales………... 64

Table 7. Predictive Validity of ATTYS and Subscales…………………………….. 65

Table 8. Teacher Demographics……………………………………………………. 66

Table 9. Continuous Variable Descriptive Statistics: Teacher Sample…………….. 68

Table 10. Correlational Results for Teacher Sample……………………………….. 69

5

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, mentor, and champion, Dr.

Amy Przeworski, for the unwavering guidance, support, and cheerleading she has lent to me during this project and throughout the past six years of my graduate career. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Arin Connell, Dr. Julie Exline, and Dr.

Matthew Garrett for their guidance and valuable insights throughout this process. I am also very grateful to all my friends and family, including my best friend Dr. Claire

Wallace, for her constant guidance and support, and to my dear husband, Michael

Silverstein, for his tireless support over the past six years, without which I would not have completed this dissertation or my doctoral degree.

I am extremely grateful for financial support for this project provided by the Freedheim

Award Fellowship awarded by The Schubert Center for Child Studies at Case Western

Reserve University.

6

Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale: Development and Initial Validation

Abstract

by

JENNIFER M. BIRNKRANT, M.A.

Trans youth experience high rates of victimization and discrimination at the hands of both parents and school staff. Two measures have been published which specifically focus on stigma toward gender nonconforming individuals and transgender adults (Hill &

Willoughby, 2005; Walch, Ngamake, Francisco, Stitt, & Shingler, 2012). There is no published measure which assesses individuals’ attitudes toward trans youth. The current study aimed to develop a measure of adults’ attitudes toward trans youth, entitled the

Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale (ATTYS). A five-factor structure was hypothesized for this novel measure including: Genderism (heteronormative attitudes), Entitlement

(belief that trans youth should not have “special” privileges), Pathology (belief that trans identity is pathological), Danger to Others (belief that trans youth pose a risk to peers), and Fabricated Identity (belief that trans identity is not true or valid). This novel measure was administered online to parents of children ages 5-17 (n=195) as well as to teachers working with children in this age range (n=39). Exploratory factor analysis of the parent data revealed a stable four-factor solution. Genderism and Fabricated Identity factors were retained as predicted; two additional factors, Advocacy and School

Accommodation, were revealed. Correlational analyses generally supported the discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity of the measure as hypothesized. The

ATTYS has solid psychometric properties and utility in future research and clinical settings to assess adult attitudes toward trans youth.

7

Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale: Development and Initial Validation

Transgender is a term used to describe individuals “whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth” (APA, 2011). Although the term “transgender” is arguably the most commonly used word to describe these individuals, it is often used to mean only individuals whose gender identity or gender expression “fits” within a binary view of gender (i.e. transmen and transwomen who identify within the binary) and has negated those individuals who are non-binary and gender noncomforming. Therefore, the term “trans” will be used in this dissertation to refer to all non-cisgender identities and expressions within the gender identity spectrum, including but not limited to transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender creative, two-spirit, genderless, etc.

Victimization Experiences of Trans Youth

Data from the National School Climate Survey (Kosciw et al., 2016) indicated that 43.3% of LGBTQ-identified students ages 13-21 reported feeling unsafe at school due to their gender expression, and approximately 40% reported avoiding gender- segregated spaces (including bathrooms and locker rooms) in school due to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable. Fifty-four percent of participants reported experiencing verbal harassment at school based on their gender expression, and 20.3% reported being physically assaulted due to their gender expression. Over 57% of participants who reported being harassed or assaulted at school reported they did not disclose the incident(s) to school staff, most often because they doubted effective intervention would occur or worried the situation would become worse if they disclosed.

8

The vast majority of participants (85.7%) heard negative remarks specifically about transgender people at school (e.g. “tranny”, “he/she”); 40.5% of students reported hearing these derogatory comments frequently or often. Over half (50.9%) of transgender students in the sample reported being prevented from using their preferred name or pronoun at school, and 60% reported they had been required to use a bathroom or locker room inconsistent with their identified gender (Kosciw et al., 2016). In a qualitative study of 24 trans youth in Philadelphia, (Sausa, 2005) 96% of participants reported being verbally harassed at school, and 83% reported being physically harassed. Seventy-five percent of participants expressed that they did not feel safe at school, and 75% of participants dropped out of school, most because of “the constant acts of violence against them based on their gender identity and expression”.

As current research indicates, a high percentage of LGBQ and trans youth experience high rates of discrimination and victimization in their schools. In addition to enduring abuse and discrimination at school, many trans youth also experience rejection and victimization at home. Many parents of trans youth initially attempt to persuade or force their children to exhibit more gender-congruent behaviors and preferences, which can be very confusing and distressing for the child. Grossman and colleagues asked 55 transgender youth to detail their gender development and their parents’ reactions to their gender nonconformity, both when they first disclosed their being transgender, and at the time of the study (Grossman, D’Augelli, Howell, & Hubbard, 2005). Fifty-four percent of mothers and 63% of fathers in the study were reported by their children to have reacted in a negative way to the initial revelation of their child’s gender variance. Additionally, 50% of mothers and 44% of fathers were reported to have a continued negative reaction to

9 their child’s identity at the time of the study (an average of three years after disclosure).

The authors also noted that the more gender nonconforming the child, the more likely they were to report verbal and physical abuse at the hands of their parents.

In a study of parents already connected with support services, Birnkrant and

Przeworski (2017) found that a majority of parents indicated full acceptance of their trans child’s gender identity. This is in contrast to Grossman and colleagues’ (2005) results which indicated that 44-50% of parents reported a continued negative reaction to their child’s gender identity an average of three years after disclosure. These differences in results may be due to differences in the methodology between this study and Grossman and colleagues’ study. Grossman et al. recruited gender diverse children from recreational programs at social service and recreational agencies and asked gender diverse youth to refer other children and adolescents to the study. Parents were not required to provide consent in their study. In contrast, Birnkrant and Przeworski recruited parents of gender diverse youth through online organizations, support groups, and social media sites for parents of gender diverse youth. Therefore, it is likely that the sample may be skewed toward parents who are more accepting of their child, either directly due to their involvement in support organizations, or due to inherent attitudes of being more accepting of gender diversity, which may have led parents to connect with support groups in the first place.

Birnkrant and Przeworski (2017) also found that overall acceptance of trans youth by school personnel appeared to increase over time, however a minority of parents in the sample endorsed “complete” acceptance of their child by school staff. However, contrary to predictions, few parents indicated that school personnel completely rejected the child

10 or contributed to a hostile school environment; it may be that parent involvement and advocacy with school personnel results in a more positive school environment for trans youth.

Stigma Toward Sexual and Gender Minorities

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals represent a minority group who face powerful stigma in the United States and around the world.

Although there is a reasonably substantial literature focusing on stigma directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer individuals and other sexual minorities, much less is known about the stigma faced by trans individuals. Herek has defined sexual stigma as the

‘‘negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collectively accords to any non-heterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community’’ (Herek,

2007). Sexual stigma has been argued to be experienced by both LGQ and trans communities as it is applicable to both sexual orientation and gender identity and/or expression which does not conform to heteronormative and/or gender-normative expectations (Herek, 1988a; Walch et al., 2012). Herek described three levels of sexual stigma that impact both heterosexual individuals as well as sexual minority individuals: enacted stigma, internalized stigma, and felt stigma (Herek, 2007). First, enacted stigma refers to an overt behavioral expression of stigma in the form of discrimination or violence; felt stigma refers to the stigma experienced by sexual minority individuals and includes the actual experience of enacted stigma as well as anticipation of possible enacted stigma; internalized stigma refers to an individual’s internalization of heteronormative attitudes and beliefs that devalue sexual minorities.

The adoption of stigma directed specifically at trans individuals is known as

11 transphobia (Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002). Unfortunately, research on stigma directed at the trans community has largely lagged behind similar research on heterosexism. Of all of these levels of stigma, enacted transphobia can be considered the most well-researched, as the extremely high prevalence rates of discrimination, victimization, and violence against trans individuals is well-documented.

However, little is known about the prevalence and extent of stigmatized attitudes toward trans individuals, as opposed to overtly discriminating and violent acts committed against trans individuals.

Herek has argued based on factor analytic findings from scales which assess heterosexism that measures of sexual stigma should strive to include only attitudinal items, rather than behavioral items and items reflecting non-evaluative beliefs about sexual minorities (Herek, 1984). This goal should apply, too, to measures of transphobia, especially due to the fact that many individuals have never or have infrequently interacted with a trans individual (or were even aware they were doing so) and therefore very few individuals likely have had the “opportunity” to enact overt violence or discrimination against a trans person. Therefore, it is important not to confound lack of

“opportunity” with lack of bias. It is also important to note that due to the fact that such overt acts of violence are carried out by only a relatively small number of highly transphobic individuals, and that trans individuals experience more subtle and arguably insidious forms of discrimination and victimization every day, it is essential to assess the extent and subtlety of negative attitudes in the general population.

Attitudes Toward Trans Individuals

Although considerable research has focused on individuals’ attitudes toward

12 sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and otherwise non-heterosexual individuals), there is currently a comparative dearth of systematic research focused on individuals’ attitudes toward gender minorities in the United States. One notable exception is a recent study by Norton and Herek (2012) which was the first to examine attitudes toward transgender individuals in a nationally representative sample. The study included over 2,200 heterosexual adult men and women and utilized a feeling thermometer with a scale of 0-100 (with higher scores indicating more acceptance) to indicate participants’ attitudes toward transgender people (Norton & Herek, 2012).

Results indicated that participants endorsed significantly lower average ratings of transgender individuals (M= 32.01) compared with all other groups presented in the study

(i.e. “men in general”, “women in general”, “gay men”, “lesbian women”, “bisexual men”, “bisexual women”) (Norton & Herek, 2012). Results also indicated ratings were strongly correlated with attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals but were found to be significantly less favorable. Negative attitudes toward transgender individuals were also found to be significantly associated with endorsement of a binary conceptualization of gender and lack of personal contact with sexual minorities, among other variables.

Another study by Nagoshi and colleagues also found that heterosexual undergraduates’ attitudes toward gender nonconforming individuals and LGB individuals were highly correlated, however attitudes toward gender noncomforming individuals were significantly less favorable compared with LGB individuals (Nagoshi et al., 2008).

For women in the sample, benevolent sexism, meaning “a positive view of women only as they fit into traditional gender roles” and rape myth acceptance, meaning “attitudes

13 supportive of sexual coercion and aggression”, were significantly associated with higher levels of transphobia (Nagoshi et al., 2008). International research has also indicated strong correlations between heterosexism and transphobia and higher levels of transphobia in men compared with women (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; King, Winter, &

Webster, 2009; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Tee & Hegarty, 2006). Higher levels of transphobia have also been associated with lower levels of education, older age, and greater religiosity (King et al., 2009; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Tee & Hegarty, 2006). Lack of prior contact (or more specifically, knowledge of prior contact) with trans individuals has also been found to be associated with more negative attitudes toward this group as a whole

(King et al., 2009). Overall, with the exception of Norton & Herek and King and colleagues, the above-mentioned studies relied on non-random undergraduate samples.

Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain the applicability of these results to a general U.S. sample (with the exception of Norton et al.’s findings). One important limiting factor which has resulted in a dearth of research in this important area is a lack of reliable measures available with which to measure attitudes toward trans individuals.

Previously Developed Measures of Attitudes Toward Trans Individuals

Genderism and transphobia scale. The first such measure which aimed to assess heteronormative attitudes and transphobia is the Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS) developed by Hill and Willoughby (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Hill and Willoughby hypothesized that the GTS would include three separate factors: transphobia, “an emotional disgust toward individuals who do not conform to society’s gender expectations”, genderism, “an ideology that reinforces the negative evaluation of gender nonconformity or an incongruence between sex and gender”, and gender-bashing, “the

14 assault and/or harassment of persons who do not conform to gender norms” (Hill &

Willoughby, 2005). However, factor analysis revealed the measure to have a two-factor structure, as the proposed genderism and transphobia subscales were highly correlated.

The GTS was also found to have strong reliability and validity, however it includes both attitudinal (genderism/transphobia subscale) as well as behavioral items (gender-bashing subscale) (e.g., “I have behaved violently towards a man because he was too feminine”;

“I have teased a woman because of her masculine appearance or behavior”) which Herek has argued is not suitable for assessing stigma. The GTS also does not explicitly assess attitudes or behavior toward trans individuals but seeks to measure attitudes and behavior toward “cross-dressers, transgenderists, and transsexuals” (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).

Although it is the authors’ prerogative to collapse these identities into one group, cross- dressers and those who identify as trans in reality represent very distinct groups: cross- dressers are individuals who generally identify as cisgender but dress in clothing typically associated with the opposite gender, whereas trans individuals, as stated above, are individuals whose core gender identity and/or gender expression does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Problematically, the items included in the GTS are phrased such that they refer to gender nonconforming or crossdressing individuals; this is problematic because when applied to trans-identified individuals, these items are perceived as offensive and are incorrect in their characterization. For example, several items in the GTS refer to “women who see themselves as men”, “feminine men”, “masculine women”, “a man on the street that I thought was really a woman” and “men who shave their legs”. While these characterizations may appropriately refer to gender nonconforming or crossdressing

15 individuals, they do not appropriately characterize those individuals who identify as trans. In fact, no item in the GTS specifically refers to a “transgender” individual or uses any synonymous terms. Due to these various issues with the GTS, Walch and colleagues sought to develop an improved measure of transphobia.

Attitudes toward transgendered individuals scale. The Attitudes Toward

Transgendered Individuals Scale (ATTI), a measure published by Walch and colleagues in 2012, is the first such measure of its kind to specifically address individuals’ attitudes toward “transgendered” individuals (Walch et al., 2012). The study aimed to develop and validate a measure of internalized stigma (i.e. transphobia) toward “transgendered” individuals that assesses both cognitive evaluations and affective reactions to

“transgendered” individuals and transgenderism and specifically did not include items which assess overt behavioral expressions of stigma and discrimination. Initial validation of the ATTI indicated high internal consistency and a single-factor structure measuring transphobic attitudes. Factor loadings were found to be high for all items onto a single factor (transphobia) rather than these two separate factors, as was originally hypothesized.

The ATTI was also found to be only moderately correlated with the gender-bashing subscale of the GTS, which suggests that transphobic stigma is more complex than simply having negative attitudes toward those perceived as “transgressing” or “violating” gender norms.

Although it represents an important advancement in this line of research, the

ATTI is problematic in that it utilizes the term “transgendered” throughout. Although the authors state that the use of “transgendered” was a conscious, specific choice, this term is currently considered to be offensive to many in the trans community and is not

16 considered politically correct, as the “-ed” suffix implies that trans individuals have had something “done to” them or that being trans “might be a choice that involves a person simply deciding to be that way or a result of something that happened to them, like sexual abuse” (Steinmetz, 2014). Initial validation of the ATTI was also performed on an undergraduate sample, which may not be generalizable to a general sample. Finally, although the measure refers generally to “transgendered individuals”, the content of the items suggests to the reader that it is referring to trans adults, specifically (e.g.

“Transgendered individuals should not be allowed to work with children”; “I would feel comfortable working closely with a transgendered individual”). To date, there is no current published measure which specifically assesses individuals’ attitudes toward trans youth, an increasingly visible minority group whose experiences with victimization and discrimination appear often to mirror those of their adult counterparts.

Psychological Functioning in Gender Diverse Youth

Although research on psychological functioning and psychopathology in trans youth suggests that they are at increased risk for developing mental health problems, it is not thought that the trans identity in and of itself is the source of such problems. Rather, the distress associated with feeling a “mismatch” between one’s gender identity and biological sex within the context of a society with such a strict gender binary, along with the pervasive stigma, discrimination, and victimization of trans individuals likely all contribute to these psychological difficulties. A growing body of recent research indicates that experiences with transphobia, and gender identity-related discrimination and victimization experiences, likely play a significant role in the development of mental health concerns among trans youth.

17

In his seminal 2003 paper, Meyer outlined his Minority Stress Theory of mental health disparities, which proposes that minority groups experience an increased prevalence of negative health outcomes as a result of experiencing stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, which in turn create a hostile and stressful social environment (Meyer,

2003). Meyer refers to minority stress “to distinguish the excess stress to which individuals from stigmatized social categories are exposed as a result of their social, often a minority, position” (Meyer, 2003). Meyer postulates that minority stress is unique in that it is “additive” to the general life stress experienced by all individuals, regardless of their minority status, “chronic” due to the fact that is related to generally unchanging social structures, and “socially-based”, in that it arises due to “social processes, institutions, and structures beyond the individual rather than individual events or conditions that characterize general stressors or biological, genetic, or other nonsocial characteristics of the person or group” (Meyer, 2003). Therefore, stigmatized individuals belonging to such a minority group must expend undue effort adapting to this stress, unlike those who are not stigmatized.

Applying his theory specifically to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, Meyer suggests three separate processes of minority stress: external, objective stressful events and conditions, expectations of such negative events and the vigilance associated with these expectations, and finally the internalization of these negative societal attitudes regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (Meyer, 2003). Meyer also suggests that the continuous, conscious concealment of one’s queer identity may also represent a fourth additional component of the minority stress process of LGB individuals. Taken together, Meyer’s Minority Stress Model offers a conceptual framework in order to

18 understand why sexual minorities may experience a significantly increased prevalence of mental health problems compared with the heterosexual majority. By operationalizing the term “minority stress” to mean chronic, societally-grounded experiences with stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, Meyer concludes that the experience of living in such a hostile and ultimately stressful environment is the main causal factor for the preponderance of negative mental health outcomes in the LGBT community.

Study Overview and Hypotheses

Due to these widespread experiences with victimization and discrimination faced by trans youth at the hands of both parents and teachers, the current study seeks to develop and conduct initial validation of a measure of parents’ and teachers’ attitudes toward trans-identified youth. Such a measure may be useful in clinical contexts to determine parents’ and possibly school staff members’ attitudes toward a trans-identified child or adolescent. Such a baseline measure of stigma could act as a guide for clinicians in determining treatment goals and possible roadblocks for psychotherapeutic and medical interventions. This measure may also be highly valuable as an instrument to assess the impact of educational interventions for educators and other school staff. For example, it would be highly useful to utilize the measure as a pre- and post- intervention tool in order to determine whether workshops, trainings, and other educational tools aimed at increasing educators’ knowledge of gender diversity and trans youth result in changes in stigma toward trans youth. Garrett (2012) points out that personal bias, personal discomfort in discussing LGBTQ-related issues, and lack of knowledge on the part of preservice teachers are often identified as major obstacles to inclusion for LGBTQ students in the classroom (Garrett, 2012). Student teachers have indeed indicated that

19 increased knowledge about LGBTQ issues is associated with more acceptance toward

LGBTQ individuals (Hirsch, 2007). As Garrett noted regarding schools’ attitudes toward

LGBTQ youth, “inclusion must begin with teachers, in the classroom, and expand through the efforts of school staff, administrators, and students” (Garrett, 2012).

The current study sought to assess the overall construct of transphobia based on a novel multi-item measure of adults’ attitudes toward trans youth. Based on Herek’s above-reviewed work regarding heterosexism and the lack of utility in assessing behavioral manifestations of stigma, the current measure specifically sought to assess only attitudinal factors rather than behavioral factors of stigma. Therefore, a subscale parallel to the GTS’s “gender-bashing” subscale was explicitly not included in this novel measure. Although the ATTI and the GTS (excluding the gender-bashing subscale) were both found to have single-factor solutions reflecting a general construct of transphobia, it was hypothesized that a measure of transphobia specifically as it is applied to trans youth would be comprised of multiple factors, due to the myriad complex issues surrounding trans youth, specifically.

Scale Development

An initial item pool was developed and conceptually refined. Twelve items were developed based on ideas drawn from the Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals scale (ATTI). Another 28 items were generated by the author with experience in trans issues in an effort to capture issues specific to trans youth that were not captured by items originally designed to reflect attitudes toward transgender adults. Finally, in response to expert feedback, two items were each split into separate items due to concerns about overly lengthy item wording, which resulted in an additional two items. The resulting 42

20 items include statements reflecting both positive and negative attitudes toward trans youth. Responses to survey items were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to refine the item pool and generate a final version of the scale. Although guidelines differ, one accepted standard for determining adequate power for conducting EFA is to recruit five participants for every variable (Gorsuch,1983). As the current measure included 42 initial items, a sample size of N=210 was planned in order to provide adequate power for the factor analysis. A five-factor solution was hypothesized based on the relevant above-summarized data as well as the author’s own clinical experience working with trans and gender diverse youth (see below for description of proposed factors). Principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation was utilized, as the factors were expected to show moderate intercorrelations. The highest-loading items on each factor that did not show substantial cross-loading were retained. Items were removed as necessary to improve the reliability and utility of the scale, with a minimum cutoff of

Cronbach’s α=0.70 for each subscale.

Validation Plan

Convergent validity. Concurrently administered scales that assess constructs presumably highly related to transphobia include The Attitudes Toward Transgendered

Individuals Scale (ATTI) and the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ).

Higher scores on the new measure reflect more positive opinions (i.e. greater acceptance) of trans youth. Higher scores on the ATTI indicate greater tolerance for transgender individuals while higher scores on the AOSQ indicate greater acceptance of stereotyping.

Therefore, it was hypothesized that the novel scale total score and subscale scores would

21 demonstrate strong positive correlations with the ATTI total score and strong negative correlations with the AOSQ total score.

Discriminant validity. Concurrently administered scales which assess constructs presumably unrelated to transphobia include the Life Orientation Test—Revised (LOTR) which measures generalized optimism/pessimism and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) which measures an individual’s ability to bounce back or recover from stress. It was predicted that no significant correlations would be found between the novel measure total score and subscale scores and the LOTR total score nor between the novel measure total and subscales scores and the BRS total score.

Predictive validity. Predictive validity tests involved conducting bivariate correlations in order to examine the associations between a number of variables and the

ATTYS total score as well as with the final ATTYS subscales as revealed through factor analysis.

Factor Solution of Measure

A five-factor solution was hypothesized to reflect the following components of transphobia toward trans youth: pathology, danger to others, genderism, fabricated identity, and entitlement.

Pathology. “Pathology” reflects an evaluation that trans-identified youth are pathological or “ill” in some way and that trans identity itself is an unnatural manifestation of gender. Nadal and colleagues have classified “pathology/abnormality” as one prominent “theme” of microaggressions commonly enacted on sexual and gender minorities (Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010). Although referring specifically to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, Herek also argued in the 1980’s that heterosexism is

22 partially fueled by a sense of “otherness” and unfounded, generalized fear of HIV/AIDS which leads heterosexual individuals to view LGB individuals as “pathological” (Herek,

1988b). Of course, it is important to note that Gender Dysphoria is also a current diagnosable mental health disorder in the current DSM-5. Although it is a source of great debate and contention, many advocates and experts argue that the continued inclusion of a gender dysphoria diagnosis in the DSM points to the fact that gender diversity is still viewed as “sanctioned” pathology (Burke, 2011). Therefore, it is likely that in part, transphobia directed toward trans youth is fueled by a belief that identifying as trans is not “natural” or not “normal” in some sense. It was hypothesized that in both parent and teacher samples, increased endorsement of “pathology” items on the ATTYS would correlate negatively with increased exposure to LGBT individuals as well as increased knowledge of trans issues. Increased endorsement of “pathology” was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with one’s reliance on stereotyping, as measured by the

Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (see Methods). Increased endorsement of

“pathology” was also hypothesized to be negatively correlated with overall Attitudes

Toward Transgendered Individuals score, as high scores on the ATTI reflect more positive attitudes toward transgender adults. Finally, more endorsement of “pathology” on the ATTYS was hypothesized to be negatively correlated with participants’ endorsement of their own experiences with discrimination as measured by the adapted

Schedule of Racist Events (see Methods).

Danger to others. “Danger to others” refers to an individual’s fear that trans youth literally represent a danger to other youth due to their perceived ability to negatively influence them or “contaminate” them in some manner. Although there is no

23 currently published empirical research on individuals’ beliefs that trans youth pose such a threat, such beliefs about trans adults have become highly publicized in part in the form of recent legislation enacted in the United States, and it remains possible that fear is part of the basis of stigma toward trans individuals. For example, North Carolina’s 2016 enactment (and subsequent 2017 repeal) of House Bill 2, or “the bathroom bill”, was passed “to protect women and children from unwanted and potentially dangerous intrusions by biological males” (Philipps, 2016). In a piece published in the New York

Times, one female high school junior who attends Greenville Christian Academy expressed that “letting biological males into women’s bathrooms would expose girls to sexual predators” and was quoted as saying, “Girls like me should never be made to shower or undress in front of boys” (Philipps, 2016). It was hypothesized that in both parent and teacher samples, increased endorsement of “danger” items on the ATTYS would correlate negatively with increased exposure to LGBT individuals as well as increased knowledge of trans issues. Increased endorsement of “danger” was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with one’s reliance on stereotyping, as measured by the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (see Methods). Increased endorsement of “danger” was also hypothesized to be negatively correlated with overall Attitudes

Toward Transgendered Individuals score, as high scores on the ATTI reflect more positive attitudes toward transgender adults. Finally, more endorsement of “danger” on the ATTYS was hypothesized to be negatively correlated with participants’ endorsement of their own experiences with discrimination as measured by the adapted Schedule of

Racist Events (see Methods).

24

Genderism. “Genderism”, as defined by Hill & Willoughby is an ideology that

“reinforces the negative evaluation of gender nonconformity…it is a cultural belief that perpetuates negative judgments of people who do not present as a stereotypical man or woman” or, in the case of youth, a stereotypical boy or girl. As is summarized above, genderism or expectations of gender conformity has been found to be highly correlated with heterosexism, and in turn heterosexism has consistently been found to be associated with transphobia (Herek, 1988; King et al., 2009; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek,

2012; Tee & Hegarty, 2006). Additionally, genderism was found to be an individual factor which comprises the GTS (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Therefore, it was hypothesized that genderism would represent a prominent, stand-alone factor in a measure of transphobia toward trans youth. It was hypothesized that in both parent and teacher samples, increased endorsement of genderism items on the ATTYS would correlate negatively with increased exposure to LGBT individuals as well as increased knowledge of trans issues. Increased endorsement of genderism was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with one’s reliance on stereotyping, as measured by the

Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (see Methods). Increased endorsement of genderism was also hypothesized to be negatively correlated with overall Attitudes

Toward Transgendered Individuals score, as high scores on the ATTI reflect more positive attitudes toward transgender adults, and the ATTI has been found to be moderately correlated with the gender-bashing subscale of the GTS (Walch et al., 2012).

Fabricated identity. “Fabricated identity” refers to individuals’ beliefs that trans youth are not “truly” trans but are being disingenuous or are “confused” about their gender identity and gender expression, perhaps for secondary gain or in an effort to

25 follow a “trend” or “fad”. The inclusion of this factor was based partially on the author’s clinical experience working with trans youth and their families. In the context of discussions of a trans-identified adolescent’s gender identity and expression, parents have consistently expressed beliefs that their child’s gender identity reflected a “phase” or a

“confusion” which they believed their child would ultimately “grow out of”. Multiple parents have also expressed beliefs that their children are following a popular trend and have pointed out the absence of trans peers in their own childhoods as confirmation that the seeming “abundance” of trans youth in today’s society represent an artifact of a current “trend”. Birnkrant and Przeworski (2017) also found that parents of gender diverse youth, in responding to open-ended items regarding their experiences interfacing with extended family and school personnel, indicated that important others had expressed similar beliefs that their child’s gender was tantamount to a “phase” or “passing fad”, or that their child is “too young to make up their mind” about their gender. Therefore, items tapping this “fabricated identity” were included in the current measure to reflect this important aspect of transphobia toward youth, in particular. It was hypothesized that in both parent and teacher samples, increased endorsement of “fabricated identity” items on the ATTYS would correlate negatively with increased exposure to LGBT individuals as well as increased knowledge of trans issues. Increased endorsement of “fabricated identity” was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with one’s reliance on stereotyping, as measured by the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (see

Methods). Increased endorsement of “fabricated identity” was also hypothesized to be negatively correlated with overall Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals score, as high scores on the ATTI reflect more positive attitudes toward transgender adults.

26

Finally, more endorsement of “fabricated identity” on the ATTYS was hypothesized to be negatively correlated with participants’ endorsement of their own experiences with discrimination as measured by the adapted Schedule of Racist Events (see Methods).

Entitlement. “Entitlement” refers to an individual’s assessment that trans youth are being afforded privileges or protections that they are not “entitled to” or that they should not be accorded. Entitlement may also include evaluations related to trans youth receiving “special treatment” which they do not “deserve”. Indeed, especially in the context of so-called “bathroom laws” and other civil rights protections for trans individuals, it is often argued that gender minorities “are radically different from racial minorities and thus should not be elevated to a protected class in the way that rac[ial minorities] are” because “sexual orientation and gender identity are linked to actions, which are a proper subject matter for moral evaluation” (Anderson, 2016). In examining open-ended responses regarding their experiences with their gender diverse youth,

Birnkrant and Przeworski also found that some parents had been met with similar dismay by school personnel who expressed affront or even hostility in response to parents’ requests for accommodations for their child. Several parents reported that school personnel indicated enacting accommodations for their child would be tantamount to providing “special treatment” and would be “unfair” to the child’s peers. Therefore, this construct labeled “entitlement” was included in hypotheses, as it may represent a distinct and important aspect of transphobia toward trans youth (Birnkrant & Przeworski, 2017).

It was hypothesized that in both parent and teacher samples, increased endorsement of

“entitlement” items on the ATTYS would correlate negatively with increased exposure to

LGBT individuals as well as increased knowledge of trans issues. Increased endorsement

27 of “entitlement” was also hypothesized to be positively correlated with one’s reliance on stereotyping, as measured by the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (see

Methods). Increased endorsement of “entitlement” was also hypothesized to be negatively correlated with overall Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals score, as high scores on the ATTI reflect more positive attitudes toward transgender adults.

Finally, more endorsement of “entitlement” on the ATTYS was hypothesized to be negatively correlated with participants’ endorsement of their own experiences with discrimination as measured by the adapted Schedule of Racist Events (see Methods).

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Participants consisted of two subsamples. The first initially consisted of 211 adults who reside in the United States, who were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical

Turk system (MTurk) and were compensated $2.00 for their participation in an approximately 45-60 minute survey. Inclusion criteria for participation included: that the participant is at least 18 years of age, speaks fluent English, and identifies as a parent/guardian of a child between the ages of five and seventeen years. Of the original sample of 211 participants, 16 participants’ data were excluded. Five participants were excluded due to incorrect responses to attention check items, and an additional 11 were excluded due to what was deemed an unacceptably short duration of time spent to complete the survey (i.e. less than 15 minutes). The final parent sample therefore consisted of 195 participants. MTurk allows researchers to efficiently and relatively inexpensively collect high-quality data via the Internet while also ensuring that data are as reliable as data collected using more traditional methods (Buhrmester, Kwang, &

28

Gosling, 2011; Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013;

Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Research also indicates that although MTurk participants are compensated for their time, most participants participate in MTurk surveys recreationally rather than as a primary means of income; MTurk users also represent a significantly more demographically diverse group than standard Internet samples or typical undergraduate samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011).

The second sample initially consisted of 59 adults who identify their primary employment as being a K-12 educational professional, including: classroom teacher, school administrator, resource specialist, teacher’s aide, etc. Educational professionals were recruited through large national groups (e.g. teachers’ unions) academic discipline- specific organizations (e.g. National Council of Teachers of English), and by emailing individual staff and administrators at individual schools across the country. The study was also advertised on relevant websites (e.g. Facebook pages, Twitter pages) that are frequented by K-12 educational professionals. Participants who did not continue far enough into the survey to complete the target measure (ATTYS) were excluded from the sample, which resulted in a final school professional sample (referred to subsequently as

“teachers”) of 39 participants.

Parent participants participated through MTurk and school professionals followed a link to the online study, both of which initially took them to an online consent form.

Upon indicating that they consented to participate, and in MTurk answering a series of questions to confirm eligibility, each participant provided data for a series of self-report measures, including multiple-choice as well as open-ended response items.

Measures

29

Measures are listed below in the order in which they appeared in the survey. The following self-report measures are provided in their entirety in the Appendix of this document. Standardized self-report measures were included to assess the construct validity of the new measure, including convergent and discriminant validity. Measures included to assess convergent validity include the Attitudes Toward Transgendered

Individuals Scale (ATTI) and the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ).

Measures included to assess discriminant validity include the Life Orientation Test—

Revised (LOT-R) and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).

Demographics. All participants reported on their gender, sexual orientation, relationship status, age, race/ethnicity, educational level, religious affiliation (if any), ability status, and number and ages of children (if any). Educational professional participants also reported on their role in their school (e.g. classroom teacher), the type of school at which they work (e.g. public, private, independent), and which subject(s) and grade(s) they teach or are involved with in an educational capacity.

Exposure to sex and gender minorities. Participants were asked to indicate whether they are personally acquainted with any trans-identified adults, trans-identified youth, LGBQ-identified adults, or LGBQ-identified youth; participants were also asked to indicate who these individuals are in relation to themselves (e.g. a family member, friend, acquaintance, coworker, student, etc.).

Measure of preexisting knowledge regarding trans issues. In order to determine the extent to which participants have preexisting knowledge regarding the concepts of internal gender identity, gender expression, biological sex, sexual orientation, and related constructs, a measure of such knowledge was developed for the current study

30

(see Appendix). This novel measure consists of 10 multiple-choice items designed to measure participants’ general knowledge of basic constructs related to gender identity and issues and language specific to trans identity and experience. In the current sample, this newly developed measure was found to have acceptable internal consistency (α=.71).

Life orientation test—revised. (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) is a

10-item self-report questionnaire which measures individual differences in generalized optimism versus pessimism. Each of the items is scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“I agree a lot”) to 4 (“I disagree a lot”), with higher scores indicating higher levels of pessimistic thinking, and lower scores indicating higher levels of optimistic thinking. The LOT-R is a widely used measure in the area of personality research. The LOT-R has been shown to have good internal consistency (α =.78) as well as good test-retest reliability (r=.79). The LOT-R was found to have good internal consistency in the current sample (α=.88).

Brief resilience scale. (BRS; Smith et al., 2008) is a 6-item self-report questionnaire which measures an individual’s ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Participants are asked to rate how well each of the six items describes them currently; each of the items is scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), with higher scores indicating higher levels of personal resilience. The BRS has been shown to be significantly positively correlated with social functioning, coping, and health status, as well as negatively correlated with anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical health symptoms. The BRS was found to have excellent internal consistency in the current sample (α=.90).

Attitudes toward trans youth scale. Participants received the following prompt:

31

Despite the fact that there are many terms that people use to describe their identity (e.g. gender diverse, gender expansive, gender non-binary, gender creative), for the sake of brevity the umbrella term trans will be used throughout this questionnaire to mean persons whose gender identity (sense of oneself as a “man” or a “woman” or on a spectrum from “man” to “woman”) and/or gender expression (expression of oneself as masculine or feminine in behavior, manner, and appearance) does not conform to what is typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

This questionnaire is designed to measure the way you feel about trans youth (up to age 18). There are no right or wrong answers, please answer as openly and honestly as you can based on your own attitudes and opinions.

Note: The following statements do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or ideas of the researchers, but rather reflect an attempt to capture a wide range of attitudes and beliefs.

Participants were then asked to respond to 42 individual items on a 5-point Likert scale from “0=Strongly Disagree” to “4=Strongly Agree” with a midpoint of “2= Neither

Agree Nor Disagree”. The measure in its entirety is included in the Appendix. In order to provide consistency with the ATTI (below), higher scores on the ATTYS reflect more positive attitudes toward trans youth.

The attitudes toward transgendered individuals scale. (Walch et al., 2012) is a

20-item self-report measure which assesses individuals’ transgender-related stigma, separately from behavioral expressions of negative attitudes such as discrimination and violence, among the general population. Each of the items is scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly agree”) to 5 (“strongly disagree”), with higher scores indicating greater tolerance and acceptance of transgender individuals. The scale has been shown to have good internal consistency (α=.95), however test-retest reliability has not been demonstrated for this relatively new scale. Higher scores on the ATTI are reflective of more positive attitudes toward transgender individuals. In the current sample, the

ATTI was found to have excellent internal consistency (α=.97).

32

Acceptance of stereotyping questionnaire. (AOSQ; Carter, Hall, Carney, &

Rosip, 2006) is a 12-item self-report measure which assesses individuals’ willingness to rely on stereotypical information when interacting with people of different social and cultural groups. Items include, for example, “You cannot get through life without generalizing about people, even though such generalizations may be overstated” and

“Sometimes when I meet new people, I can predict their behavior or attitudes just from knowing what social/cultural groups they belong to.” (Carter et al., 2006). Each of the items is scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with higher scores indicating a greater acceptance of stereotyping. The AOSQ exhibits good reliability (α=.78) and has been found to be significantly associated with measures of sexism, racism, social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and need to evaluate. In the current sample, the AOSQ was also found to have good internal consistency (α=.85).

Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale (short version). (MCSDS; Reynolds,

1982) is a 13-item version of the original 33-item self-report measure developed by

Crowne & Marlowe (1960) which is widely used to assess tendency to provide favorable or socially desirable responses as evidenced by responses to items describing culturally- approved behaviors that have a low incidence of occurrence. Items are presented in true- false format with higher scores reflecting responses consistent with greater desire to portray socially desirable behaviors. The shortened 13-item version was found to correlate strongly with the original 33-item version (r=0.93) and has been found to have acceptable reliability (r=0.76) and internal consistency (α=0.70) (Ballard, 1992;

33

Reynolds, 1982). In the current sample, the MCSDS was also found to have acceptable internal consistency (α=.80).

Schedule of racist events (adapted). (SRE; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) is an 18- item self-report measure which assesses frequency of specific racist events in the past year and in one's entire life, and measures to what extent this discrimination was subjectively stressful to the individual. The SRE has been shown to have high internal consistencies (.94<α<.95) (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996). In the current study, this measure of perceived discrimination was adapted to reflect discriminatory experiences based on any self-identified experiences with discrimination (e.g. based on race/ethnicity, sex/gender, religion, ability-status, etc.) and item language was adapted to refer to general experiences of discrimination. Only those participants who self-identified as having experienced at least one lifetime discriminatory event (of any kind) provided data for this measure. In the current sample, the SRE was found to have excellent internal consistency

(α=.95).

Results

Parent Sample Findings

Complete demographic information for the parent sample can be found in Table 1.

Parent sample demographics. Parent participants reported ages ranging from

22-58 years (M=37.3, SD=7.5). Seventy-six participants (38.9%) identified as cisgender men, 110 (56.4%) identified as cisgender women, six (3.1%) identified as transgender men, and three (1.5%) identified as transgender women. In terms of sexual orientation,

168 (86.2%) identified as heterosexual, two (1.0%) identified as gay, six (3.1%) identified as lesbian, 22 (11.3%) identified as bisexual, and one participant (0.5%)

34 identified as “heteroflexible”1. One hundred sixty-two participants (83.1%) identified their race as Caucasian, 16 (8.2%) identified as Black/African-American, nine (4.6%) identified as Asian, six (3.1%) identified as Native American, three (1.5%) identified as

Hispanic/Latino, and three (1.5%) identified as multiracial or “mixed racial”1.

One hundred twenty-three participants (63.1%) reported their relationship status as “married”, 30 (15.4%) as “in a committed relationship”, 19 (9.7%) as “single”, 14

(7.2%) as “divorced”, nine (4.6%) as “dating, not in a committed relationship”. In terms of highest level of education completed, 69 participants (35.4%) reported receiving a bachelor’s degree, 49 (25.1%) reported completing “some college, did not receive a degree”, 32 (16.4%) reported receiving an associate’s degree, 23 (11.8%) reported receiving a graduate degree, 21 (10.8%) reported having a high school degree or equivalent (GED), and one participant (0.5%) reported they did not complete a high school degree. In terms of religious/spiritual tradition, 63 (32.3%) identified as Christian

(non-Catholic), 33 (16.9%) identified as Catholic, 31 (15.8%) identified as Atheist, 25

(12.8%) identified as Agnostic, 16 (8.2%) identified as Spiritual but not religious, 16

(8.2%) identified their religious/spiritual tradition as “None”, five (2.5%) identified as

Wiccan/Pagan, two (1.0%) identified as Buddhist, two (1.0%) identified as

LDS/Mormon, one (0.5%) identified as Taoist, and finally one (0.5%) identified as

Unitarian.

In terms of ability status, 152 participants (77.9%) identified as not having a disability, 24 (12.3%) identified having a mental health disorder, 12 (6.1%) identified as having a long-term medical illness, nine (4.6%) identified as having a mobility

1 Participants were permitted to choose multiple options for this item, therefore total count is greater than 100%.

35 impairment, five (2.6%) identified as having a sensory (e.g. vision or hearing) impairment, and three (1.5%) identified as having a learning disability1. In terms of political affiliation, 85 (43.6%) identified as Democrat, 54 (27.7%) identified as

Independent, 44 (22.6%) identified as Republican, nine (4.6%) reported “no affiliation”, and three (1.5%) identified as “Other”. Sixty-eight participants (34.9%) identified as

Liberal, 58 (29.7%) identified as Moderate, 38 (19.5%) identified as Conservative, 24

(12.3%) identified as Very Liberal, and seven (3.6%) identified as Very Conservative.

When asked how many children participants have, 76 (39.0%) identified as having two children, 63 (32.3%) as having one child, 34 (17.4%) as having three children, 15 (7.7%) as having four children, and an additional seven participants (3.6%) identified as having more than four children.

Exploratory factor analysis. An initial visual inspection of the correlation matrix of the original 42 items of the ATTYS resulted in the exclusion of one item2 due to a large number of correlations (i.e. 27) found to be r<0.3; all other items were found to have a minimal number (i.e. <5) of such correlations. No items were found to have any correlations >0.8 suggesting that multicollinearity was not present. The resulting 41 items of the original Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale (ATTYS) were entered into an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation, as the factors were expected to show moderate intercorrelations. The following is a summary of the decision process utilized to determine the final items comprising the

ATTYS.

2 Item 41: “Trans youth are experimenting with an alternative identity the way all youth experiment with many things.”

36

Examination of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy indicated strong sampling adequacy (KMO=0.95) (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also highly significant (Χ2=6881.5, df=820, p<.0001) also indicating the absence of significant issues with sampling adequacy. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Four factors had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1.0 and altogether explained a total of 66.6% of the variance (Kaiser, 1960).

The scree plot was difficult to interpret but appeared to show inflection points which would justify retaining either three or four factors. Four factors were ultimately retained due to the convergence of the scree plot data and the Kaiser’s criterion on this value. A minimum cutoff of 0.4 was utilized to determine sufficient factor loadings for each item; items that did not load onto any one factor with this sufficiency were removed (Stevens,

2002). Examination of the pattern matrix after rotation indicated 22 items loaded onto

Factor 1 with loadings greater than the cutoff of 0.4 and were retained. These items clustering on Factor 1 suggested that Factor 1 represents Genderism, or expectations of stereotypical gender conformity. Nine items loaded onto Factor 2 with loadings greater than 0.4 and were retained. These nine items which clustered onto Factor 2 all suggested that Factor 2 represents Advocacy on behalf of trans youth. Three items loaded onto

Factor 3 with loadings greater than 0.4 and were retained; one additional item with a factor loading <0.4 on Factor 3 and poorer loadings on other factors was removed. The items which clustered onto Factor 3 suggested this factor represents School

Accommodation. Five items loaded onto Factor 4 with loadings greater than 0.4 and were retained; one item with poor loading (<0.4) on Factor 4 and poorer loadings on other factors was removed. The five items loading onto Factor 4 suggested this factor

37 represents Fabricated Identity (consistent with the above-proposed factor). One item exhibited equal loadings on both Factors 1 and 4 and for conceptual clarity based upon conceptualized factor hypotheses was retained on Factor 4.

Because Factor 3 included only three items with sufficient loading and it was conceptually hypothesized that these items would converge with the items loading onto

Factor 2, a second EFA was run constraining the results to three factors. However, this three-factor constrained solution proved to be much less useful and interpretable than the original unconstrained four-factor solution. Therefore, the results of the initial unconstrained factor analysis were retained. Ultimately, these decisions resulted in the removal of two items due to poor factors loadings, resulting in 39 individual final items.

See Tables 3 and 4 for eigenvalues, percentage of variance explained, and factor loadings for the final loadings after rotation.

The content of these final four factors was different from initial predictions. As noted above, five factors were originally predicted to emerge through factor analysis:

Pathology, Danger to Others, Genderism, Entitlement, and Fabricated Identity. One factor, Fabricated Identity, was indeed borne out by the data and was retained. A factor reflecting Genderism was also retained, however it ultimately contained many items initially hypothesized to load onto separate factors conceptualized as Pathology and

Danger to Others, which were not independently borne out by the data. The new

Advocacy factor was made up of items previously hypothesized to tap into the hypothesized Pathology and Entitlement factors, which again were not borne out. Finally, a separate factor reflecting School Accommodation was found to be made up of three

38 items previously hypothesized to tap into the original Entitlement factor, which again was not ultimately borne out.

ATTYS descriptive statistics. The total ATTYS score was computed by averaging all 39 items (M=2.85, SD=0.85). Each subscale score was computed by averaging the items within each subscale as defined by the above factor analysis. As

Table 5 shows, all subscales correlated positively with the total ATTYS score and with each other at the p<0.01 level. Comparing overall scores at the subscale level, because higher scores reflect more positive attitudes, responses consistent with more negative attitudes toward trans youth were most strongly endorsed in the School Accommodation subscale (M=2.21, SD=1.13), followed by Advocacy subscale scores (M=2.76, SD=0.93),

Fabricated Identity subscale scores (M=2.83, SD=0.93), and finally Genderism subscale scores (M=2.97, SD=0.93). The association between the ATTYS total score and the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) was non-significant (r=-0.01, p=ns) indicating participants’ responses to the scale did not appear to be affected by reported social desirability factors. Reliability analyses indicated the ATTYS total measure (α=0.98) as well as the Genderism (α=0.97), Advocacy (α=0.91), and Fabricated

Identity (α=0.90) subscales demonstrated excellent reliabilities, while the School

Accommodation subscale (α=0.78) demonstrated acceptable reliability.

ATTYS convergent and discriminant validity. As planned, bivariate correlations were run to evaluate the convergent validity of the ATTYS subscales and total score in relation to the Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals (ATTI) total score as well as the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ). Bivariate correlations were also run to evaluate the discriminant validity of the ATTYS subscales

39 and total score in relation to the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) as well as the Life

Orientation Test—Revised (LOTR).

Total ATTYS score. As predicted, the ATTYS total score was strongly positively correlated with the ATTI total score (r=0.76, p<0.01) and significantly negatively associated with the AOSQ total score (r=-0.52, p<0.01). Also as predicted, non- significant correlations were observed between the ATTYS total score and BRS total

(r=0.05, p=ns) as well as the LOTR total score (r=-0.01, p=ns).

Genderism. As expected, the Genderism subscale score was significantly positively associated with the ATTI total score (r=0.74, p<0.01) and significantly negatively associated with the AOSQ total score (r=-0.48, p<0.01). Also consistent with predictions, results revealed non-significant correlations between the Genderism subscale and BRS total (r=0.06, p=ns) and LOTR total scores (r=0.01, p=ns).

Advocacy. The content captured in the Advocacy subscale was originally predicted to make up part of subscales which were not borne out, therefore no specific predictions were made for this emergent subscale. The Advocacy subscale score was significantly positively associated with the ATTI total score (r=0.69, p<0.01) and significantly negatively associated with the AOSQ total score (r=-0.45, p<0.01), as might be predicted. Results revealed non-significant correlations between the Advocacy subscale and BRS total (r=-0.02, p=ns) and LOTR total scores (r=-0.08, p=ns).

School accommodation. The content captured in the School Accommodation subscale was originally predicted to make up part of subscales which were not borne out by the factor analysis, therefore no specific predictions were made for this subscale. The

School Accommodation subscale score was significantly positively associated with the

40

ATTI total score (r=0.55, p<0.01) and significantly negatively associated with the AOSQ total score (r=-0.44, p<0.01), as might be predicted. Results revealed non-significant correlations between the School Accommodation subscale and BRS total (r=-0.01, p=ns) and LOTR total scores (r=-0.002, p=ns).

Fabricated identity. As expected, the Fabricated Identity subscale score was significantly positively associated with the ATTI total score (r=0.54, p<0.01) and significantly negatively associated with the AOSQ total score (r=-0.46, p<0.01). Also consistent with predictions, results revealed non-significant correlations between the

Fabricated Identity subscale and BRS total (r=0.09, p=ns) and LOTR total scores (r=0.01, p=ns).

ATTYS predictive validity.

Total ATTYS score. As predicted, the ATTYS total score was significantly positively associated with exposure to LGBTQ individuals such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth were associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals in participants’ lives (r=0.26, p<0.01). Also consistent with predictions, more positive attitudes toward trans youth was associated with increased knowledge of trans issues (r=0.40, p<0.01). Contrary to predictions, a non-significant correlation was found between ATTYS total score and lifetime reported experiences with discrimination as measured by the SRE-adapted (r=-0.11, p=ns).

Genderism. As predicted, the Genderism subscale score was significantly positively associated with exposure to LGBTQ individuals such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to Genderism were associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals in participants’ lives (r=0.25, p<0.01). Also

41 consistent with predictions, more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to

Genderism was associated with increased knowledge of trans issues (r=0.39, p<0.01).

Contrary to predictions, a non-significant trend was found between Genderism score and lifetime reported experiences with discrimination as measured by the SRE-adapted (r=-

0.13, p=0.08).

Advocacy. The content captured in the Advocacy subscale was originally predicted to make up part of subscales which were not borne out, therefore no specific predictions were made for this emergent subscale. The Advocacy subscale score was significantly positively associated with exposure to LGBTQ individuals such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to Advocacy were associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals in participants’ lives (r=0.17, p<0.05). More positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to Advocacy was associated with increased knowledge of trans issues (r=0.41, p<0.01). A non-significant correlation was found between Advocacy subscale score and lifetime reported experiences with discrimination as measured by the SRE-adapted (r=-0.03, p=ns).

School accommodation. The content captured in the School Accommodation subscale was originally predicted to make up part of subscales which were not borne out, therefore no specific predictions were made for this emergent subscale. The School

Accommodation subscale score was significantly positively associated with exposure to

LGBTQ individuals such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to

School Accommodation were associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals in participants’ lives (r=0.23, p<0.01). Contrary to what might be predicted, attitudes toward trans youth in regards to School Accommodation was not associated with

42 knowledge of trans issues (r=0.09, p=ns). A non-significant correlation was also found between the School Accommodation subscale score and lifetime reported experiences with discrimination as measured by the SRE-adapted (r=0.02, p=ns).

Fabricated identity. As predicted, the Fabricated Identity subscale score was significantly positively associated with exposure to LGBTQ individuals such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to Fabricated Identity were associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals in participants’ lives (r=0.24, p<0.01).

Also consistent with predictions, more positive attitudes toward trans youth in regards to

Fabricated Identity was associated with increased knowledge of trans issues (r=0.39, p<0.01). Contrary to predictions, a non-significant trend was found between Fabricated

Identity score and lifetime reported experiences with discrimination as measured by the

SRE-adapted (r=-0.15, p=0.05).

Teacher Sample Findings

Complete demographic information for the teacher sample can be found in Table 8.

Teacher sample demographics. Teacher participants reported ages ranging from

26-57 years (M=40.5, SD=8.6). Thirty participants (76.9%) identified as cisgender women and nine (23.1%) identified as cisgender men. In terms of sexual orientation, 34

(87.2%) identified as heterosexual, three (7.7%) identified as gay, and two (5.1%) identified as bisexual. Thirty-eight participants (97.4%) identified their race as

Caucasian, and one (2.6%) identified as “mixed”.

Twenty-four participants (61.5%) reported their relationship status as “married”, eight (20.5%) as “in a committed relationship”, three (7.7%) as “single”, two (5.1%) as

“divorced”, one (2.6%) as “dating, not in a committed relationship”, and one (2.6%)

43 chose not to answer this item. In terms of highest level of education completed, 26 participants (66.7%) reported receiving a graduate degree, and 13 (33.3%) reported having a bachelor’s degree. In terms of religious/spiritual tradition, 12 (30.7%) identified as Catholic, eight (20.5%) identified as Christian (non-Catholic), five (12.8%) identified their religious/spiritual tradition as “None”, four (10.2%) identified as Jewish, four

(10.2%) identified as Spiritual but not religious, two (5.1%) identified as Atheist, one

(2.6%) identified as Agnostic, one (2.6%) identified as Buddhist, one (2.6%) identified as

Greek Orthodox, and one (2.6%) identified as Quaker.

In terms of ability status, 34 participants (87.2%) identified as not having a disability, three (7.7%) identified having a mental health disorder, two (5.1%) identified as having a sensory (e.g. vision or hearing) impairment, and one (2.6%) identified as having a learning disability. In terms of political affiliation, 22 (56.4%) identified as

Democrat, eight (20.5%) identified as Republican, six (15.4%) identified as Independent, and three (7.7%) reported “no affiliation”. Twenty-one participants (53.8%) identified as

Liberal, nine (23.1%) identified as Moderate, seven (17.9%) identified as Very Liberal, and two (5.1%) identified as Conservative. When asked how many children participants have, 15 (38.5%) identified as having no children, 15 (38.5%) identified as having two children, four (10.3%) as having three children, three (7.7%) as having one child, and two

(5.1%) identified as having five children.

In terms of their current professional role, 31 participants (79.5%) identified as being a classroom teacher, four (10.3%) identified as being a school administrator, three

(7.7%) identified as “Other” (i.e. learning specialist, ESL teacher), and one (2.6%) identified as a creative arts teacher. Twenty-five participants (64.1%) identified as

44 working at a public school, 10 (25.6%) at a private school, 10 (25.6%) at an independent school, five (12.8%) at a school for specialized populations, two (5.1%) at a charter school, one (5.1%) at a magnet school, and one (5.1%) at an online-based school. When asked what subject(s) participants primarily teach, six participants (15.4%) reported teaching social studies/history, six (15.4%) reported mathematics, five (12.8%) reported

“all subjects”, four (10.3%) reported sciences, three (7.7%) reported English, two (5.1%) reported psychology, two (5.1%) reported English as a Second Language (ESL), two

(5.1%) reported foreign languages, one (2.6%) reported law, and one (2.6%) reported theatre arts; seven participants (17.9%) did not respond to this item.

Preliminary findings in teacher data. Parallel analyses were initially planned for both the parent and teacher samples collected in the current study. However, due to the small size of the final teacher sample (n=39), it was determined that there was not sufficient data to conduct a factor analysis or validation analyses within this sample.

Therefore, preliminary correlational analyses were conducted in order to report on the initial relevant findings. The following correlational analyses are based on raw ATTYS total score data collected from the current teacher sample (i.e., based on the original 42- item measure not subjected to factor analysis). The total ATTYS score was computed by averaging all original 42 items (M=3.36, SD=0.53). The association between the ATTYS total raw score and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) was non- significant (r=0.07, p=ns) indicating teachers’ responses to the scale did not appear to be affected by reported social desirability factors.

Bivariate correlations revealed a statistically significant positive association between the ATTYS total raw score and familiarity with LGBTQ individuals (r=0.57

45 p<0.01) such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth were strongly associated with increased familiarity with queer and trans individuals. A significant positive association was also found between ATTYS total raw score and ATTI total score (r=0.83, p<0.01) such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth were strongly associated with more positive attitudes toward transgender adults. A non-significant negative trend was found between the ATTYS total raw score and AOSQ total score (r=-0.28, p<0.10) such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth were associated with less use of stereotyping when interacting with others of different social groups. Non-significant associations were found between ATTYS total raw score and trans knowledge total score

(r=0.16, p=ns) as well as number of lifetime experiences with discrimination (r=0.12, p=ns). Non-significant associations were also found between ATTYS total raw score and lifetime optimism total score (r=-0.02, p=ns) as well as resilience total score (r=-0.04, p=ns).

Discussion

Previous research on attitudes toward trans individuals thus far has failed to capture attitudes toward trans youth. Previously developed measures of attitudes toward trans individuals, including the Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS; Hill &

Willoughby, 2005) and the Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale (ATTI;

Walch et al., 2012) have assessed adult attitudes toward adults, conflated trans individuals, cross-dressing individuals, and gender nonconforming individuals, and have suffered from utilizing language which is considered to be offensive to trans individuals

(e.g. “transgendered”). Trans youth have been found to report a wide range of discrimination and victimization experiences in all spheres of life, including at school and

46 in the home (e.g. Grossman et al., 2005; Kosciw et al., 2016). Indeed, the sociopolitical climate in the United States continues to present challenges for gender diverse youth, as evidenced for example by a recent decision in February 2018 by the federal Education

Department to stop investigating civil rights complaints by trans students barred from using school bathrooms that match their gender identity (Balingit, 2018).

Due to these widespread experiences with victimization and discrimination faced by trans youth at the hands of both parents and teachers, the current study sought to develop and conduct initial validation of a measure of parents’ and teachers’ attitudes toward trans-identified youth. Specifically, the current study sought to assess the overall construct of transphobia based on a novel multi-item measure of adults’ attitudes toward trans youth. Such a measure may be useful in clinical contexts to determine parents’ and school staff members’ attitudes toward a trans-identified child or adolescent. Such a baseline measure of stigma could also act as a guide for clinicians in determining treatment goals and possible roadblocks for psychotherapeutic and medical, transition- related care.

ATTYS Descriptive Data

Parent data revealed that following exploratory factor analysis and removal of three items, parents overall reported somewhat positive attitudes toward trans youth, as revealed by their mean total ATTYS scores (M=2.85) on a scale of 0-4, with high scores indicating more positive attitudes overall. These overall positive attitudes are inconsistent with previous research on parents’ discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward trans youth (e.g. Grossman et al., 2005, Sausa 2005). However, these samples are not directly comparable, as previous research on parents’ attitudes and behaviors toward trans youth

47 have focused on samples of parents of trans and gender diverse youth, whereas the current sample focused on a general parent sample of children ages 5-17. A 2012 study of heterosexual adults’ attitudes also found overall negative attitudes toward transgender individuals, however this too was not a sample of parents, specifically (Norton & Herek,

2012). It is possible that when considering trans youth in general, not in relation to themselves or their own family, parents report more positive attitudes toward trans youth as a group, as opposed to when having to grapple with their own child identifying as gender diverse. It would be beneficial for future studies of parents’ attitudes to differentiate between attitudes toward youth in a hypothetical sense versus when considering participants’ own children to determine how and in what ways attitudes may differ with these differential prompts. It is also notable that 47% of the current parent sample identified themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal”, which may be a reflection of the MTurk worker base, and may account for these reported overall positive attitudes toward trans youth to some extent.

Teacher participants also reported overall highly positive attitudes toward trans youth (M=3.36) on a scale of 0-4, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes.

This, too, is inconsistent with data from the National School Discrimination Survey

(Kosciw et al., 2016) which indicates that the vast majority of trans youth experience significant discrimination and victimization by school staff. However, this finding may be explained by the fact that the teacher sample was not a randomly-collected sample of participants, but rather teachers elected to participate in the current survey. This self- selected sample likely represents an overall more accepting group than the larger sample

48 of teachers and school staff nationally, given their inherent interest in participating in the current study.

ATTYS Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted with the sample of 195 parents who participated in the current survey using Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Although the ATTI and the GTS (excluding the gender-bashing subscale) were both found to have single- factor solutions reflecting a general construct of transphobia, it was hypothesized that an attitudinal measure specifically applied to trans youth would be comprised of multiple factors, due to the myriad complex issues surrounding trans youth as opposed to trans adults. Consistent with this hypothesis, exploratory factor analysis indeed revealed the

ATTYS to contain a four-factor structure including the following factors: Genderism,

Advocacy, School Accommodation, and Fabricated Identity. These four factors ultimately were different than the five factors which were originally hypothesized. Initial hypotheses referred to the following factors: Pathology, Danger to Others, Genderism,

Entitlement, and Fabricated Identity. One factor, Fabricated Identity, was indeed borne out by analyses as hypothesized and was retained. The initial inclusion of this hypothesized factor was based partially on the author’s clinical experience working with trans youth and their families. In the context of discussions of a trans-identified adolescent’s gender identity and expression, parents have often expressed beliefs that their child’s gender identity reflected a “phase” or a “confusion” which they believed their child would ultimately “grow out of”. Parents have also expressed beliefs that their children are following a popular trend and have pointed out the absence of trans peers in their own childhoods as confirmation that trans youth in today’s society represent a

49 current “trend”. Birnkrant and Przeworski (2017) also found that parents of gender diverse youth, in responding to open-ended items regarding their experiences interfacing with extended family and school personnel, indicated that important others had expressed similar beliefs that their child’s gender diversity was tantamount to a “phase” or “passing fad”, or that their child is “too young to make up their mind” about their gender.

Consistent with these clinical observations and qualitative findings, this factor was indeed revealed to be present in the current measure.

The original Genderism factor was also borne out by analyses but ultimately contained many items initially hypothesized to belong to the proposed Pathology and

Danger to Others factors. Genderism, or expectation of gender conformity, has been found to be highly correlated with heterosexism, which itself is highly correlated with transphobia (e.g. King et al., 2009; Nagoshi et al., 2008). Genderism was found to be the standalone factor which comprises the GTS (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Therefore, it was hypothesized that genderism would represent a prominent, stand-alone factor in a measure of transphobia toward trans youth, which was indeed supported by factor analysis results.

The new Advocacy factor was made up of items previously hypothesized to load onto the original Pathology and Entitlement factors. The new School Accommodation factor was also not initially hypothesized but was found to be made up of items hypothesized to load onto the originally hypothesized Entitlement factor, a factor which was not revealed by analyses. The two novel factors which were not hypothesized but which were revealed through factor analysis (Advocacy, School Accommodation) suggest that parent participants responded to ATTYS items that referred to school-based

50 advocacy versus general advocacy in different manners. This differentiation was not initially hypothesized but makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, as parents may consider parent and family advocacy for a trans child to be different than a school’s responsibility to provide accommodations and school-based interventions for trans youth; parents in the current sample endorsed more negative attitudes in the School

Accommodation subscale compared with the general Advocacy subscale. Therefore, it may be that parents in this sample felt more strongly that parents of trans youth have a duty to advocate for their child’s rights than that schools are obligated to implement policies and trainings to educate personnel and students about gender diverse and trans issues. It would be beneficial in the future to ask additional closed- as well as open-ended questions to clarify the difference between these two disparate constructs.

ATTYS Convergent, Discriminant, and Predictive Validity

As planned, bivariate correlations were run in the parent sample to evaluate the convergent validity of the ATTYS subscales and total score in relation to the Attitudes

Toward Transgendered Individuals (ATTI) total score as well as the Acceptance of

Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ). Bivariate correlations were also run to evaluate the discriminant validity of the ATTYS subscales and total score in relation to the Brief

Resilience Scale (BRS) as well as the Life Orientation Test—Revised (LOTR).

Overall, the ATTYS demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity as predicted. The ATTYS total score as well as all four subscale scores were significantly positively associated with the ATTI total score such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth were associated with more positive attitudes toward trans adults and vice versa. The ATTYS total score and subscale scores also demonstrated no relationships

51 with the BRS or LOTR total scores. Although a priori hypotheses were not developed for the novel subscales of Advocacy and School Accommodation, the strength and direction of these relationships were as would be predicted and were consistent across all subscales as well as the total measure score. These results indicate that the ATTYS indeed measures a construct consistent with what might be called “transphobia” and does not measure irrelevant constructs such as optimism or resilience.

In terms of predictive validity, it was hypothesized that the ATTYS total score and subscale scores would be significantly positively associated with familiarity with

LGBTQ individuals as well as self-reported knowledge of trans issues, such that more positive attitudes toward trans youth would be associated with more familiarity with

LGBTQ individuals and greater self-reported knowledge of trans issues. It was also hypothesized that the ATTYS scores would be significantly positively associated with self-reported lifetime number of experiences with personal discrimination, such that more favorable attitudes would be associated with more perceived lifetime discrimination events. As predicted, the ATTYS total score as well as three out of four subscale scores

(Genderism, Advocacy, Fabricated Identity) were significantly positively associated with more familiarity with LGBTQ individuals and increased knowledge of trans issues. These findings are consistent with previous research (e.g. Norton & Herek, 2012), which has indicated that increased personal contact with or exposure to sex and gender minorities was found to be associated with more positive attitudes toward transgender individuals.

The School Accommodation subscale, while significantly positively associated with familiarity with LGBTQ individuals, was not found to be significantly correlated with knowledge of trans issues. Contrary to predictions, neither the ATTYS total score nor any

52 subscale scores were found to be associated with lifetime perceived discrimination.

Although not based on any previous literature base, it was hypothesized that those parent participants who themselves had had experiences with discrimination may in turn have more empathy or engage in increased perspective-taking when considering their attitudes toward trans youth; clearly, this was not borne out in the data. It may be that one’s own experiences with discrimination, based on a variety of potential minority identities, do not directly translate to inherently more positive attitudes toward another minority group. It may also be that adult participants do not readily engage in such perspective-taking when considering youth.

Although predictive validity per se was not run for the teacher sample, as the small sample size prohibited initial validation of the teacher version of the ATTYS at this time, preliminary correlational results indicated that the overall total raw score of the

ATTYS was significantly positively associated with familiarity with LGBTQ individuals but not related to knowledge of trans issues nor lifetime discrimination events. This is inconsistent with previous literature which suggests that increased knowledge about

LGBTQ issues is associated with more acceptance toward LGBTQ individuals in student teachers (Hirsch, 2007). It may be that the very small sample size (n=39) prevented this relationship from reaching statistical significance in the current sample.

Limitations and Future Directions

Given that the aim of the current study was to develop a self-report measure, it is important to note that self-report data, by definition, is subject to response bias. Due to the nature of this novel attitudinal measure in assessing individuals’ biases toward a minority group, it is highly possible that participants may have been reluctant to report

53 negative attitudes. However, non-significant relationships between ATTYS scores and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale in both parent and teacher samples indicate social desirability factors may not have been an issue in the current sample. It is also notable that the current data was collected anonymously through the internet which may have resulted in bias. Attention check items and blinded inclusion criteria items were included in the parent survey collected through MTurk in an attempt to limit fabricated data; those participants who failed any attention check items were removed from the dataset and their data were not included in any reported analyses. Because this area of research is currently in its infancy, one key measure used in the current analyses (i.e. the measure of knowledge of trans issues) was developed specifically for this study and was utilized in predictive validity analyses. In the future, it will be essential to explore the psychometric properties of this novel measure in order to determine whether it is a valid and reliable instrument for the body of knowledge it was intended to measure.

The current sample was limited to individuals living in the United States; future research would do well to explore whether the current results, including the factor structure of the ATTYS, are applicable in other cultures. It is notable that nine parent participants (4.6% of the total sample) identified as transgender individuals themselves, which may have contributed to bias in the data. However, when these nine individuals were removed from the dataset, results did not differ. In the current parent sample, 83% of participants identified as Caucasian and 47% identified as “liberal” or “very liberal” compared to 23% identifying as “conservative” or “very conservative”; they were also a highly educated sample, with 35% reporting having a Bachelor’s degree and another 25% reporting they attended some college. In the teacher sample, 77% of participants

54 identified as women, and 97% identified as Caucasian; 72% of the teacher sample identified as “liberal” or “very liberal”. As previous research has indicated that both men and those with lower levels of education report more transphobia (e.g. Hill &

Willoughby, 2005; King, Winter & Webster, 2009; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Tee & Hegarty,

2006), or less favorable attitudes toward trans individuals, it may be that the gender makeup of the teacher sample, for example, and the high level of education reported overall in the parent sample, partially explain the overall positive reported attitudes toward trans youth in the current sample. Future research on adults’ attitudes toward trans youth would do well to recruit a more diverse sample of individuals in order to encapsulate a potentially wider range of attitudes, backgrounds, and beliefs.

As noted in the Results section, parallel analyses were initially planned for both the parent and teacher samples collected in the current study. However, due to the small size of the final teacher sample (n=39), it was determined that there was not sufficient data to conduct a factor analysis or validation analyses within this sample. Therefore, preliminary correlational analyses were conducted in order to report on the initial relevant findings. Data collection is ongoing for the teacher sample, and it is our hope to collect sufficient data to conduct a factor analysis and validation for a teacher version of the

ATTYS in the future. Additional teacher data would also allow for comparison of groups within the teacher sample, for example to examine differential attitudes based on demographic factors such as gender, age, political affiliation, and geographical region. In a study of over 600 music teachers’ attitudes toward transgender individuals, Silveira and

Goff found that participants overall exhibited positive attitudes, with female participants reporting significantly more positive attitudes than male participants, and socially liberal

55 participants reporting more positive attitudes than socially conservative teachers (Silveira

& Goff, 2016). School location was not found to significantly predict attitudes toward trans individuals or attitudes regarding supportive school practices for trans students.

Additional data would allow for comparison of ATTYS data with this data.

The current study did not allow for assessing test-retest reliability, as participants were only presented with the survey on one occasion; future research should aim to assess this important aspect of reliability for the ATTYS. Another limitation of the current study is the fact that exploratory factory analysis was used as opposed to confirmatory factor analysis. Future work may utilize CFA techniques in order to confirm the above-reported factor structure of the ATTYS. Moving forward, it would be highly useful to utilize the current version of the ATTYS in a study of parents of trans youth to determine how their attitudes might differ from a general sample of parents. It would also be beneficial in this future study to include open-ended items and report on qualitative data in order to collect another set of data for the purposes of convergent validity for the

ATTYS. Additionally, in the current study, the instructions prior to the ATTYS items prompted participants to consider “trans youth (up to age 18)” but did not specify any specific age group(s) within that demographic. In the future, researchers may wish to examine important adults’ attitudes toward trans or gender diverse youth of specific ages; although no research has been conducted examining differential attitudes toward trans youth based on different age groups or developmental levels to date, it may be that attitudes differ based on this dimension. For example, it seems possible that adults may feel that adolescents are “old enough” to make determinations about their identity, whereas younger children are “too young” to do so with clarity.

56

The ATTYS will be highly valuable as an instrument to assess the impact of educational interventions for educators and other school staff, once a teacher form of the

ATTYS is developed. It would be highly useful to utilize the measure as a pre- and post- intervention tool in order to determine whether workshops, trainings, and other educational tools aimed at increasing educators’ knowledge of gender diversity and trans youth result in changes in stigma toward trans youth. It is our hope that clinicians, too, will find the current version of the ATTYS useful in their work with families of trans youth, in assessing parents’ attitudes and developing interventions to best meet the needs of their clients.

57

Table 1 Parent Sample Demographics Variable n % Gender Cisgender men 76 38.9 Cisgender women 110 56.4 Transgender men 6 3.1 Transgender women 3 1.5

Age (M, SD) 37.3 (7.5)

Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 168 86.2 Gay 2 1.0 Lesbian 6 3.1 Bisexual 22 11.3 Heteroflexible 1 0.5

Race Caucasian 162 83.1 Black/African-American 16 8.2 Asian 9 4.6 Native American 6 3.1 Hispanic/Latino 3 1.5 Multiracial 3 1.5

Relationship Status Married 123 63.1 In a Committed Relationship 30 15.4 Single 19 9.7 Divorced 14 7.2 Dating, Not in Committed Relationship 9 4.6

Education Level Graduate degree 23 11.8 Bachelor’s degree 69 35.4 Some college, did not receive degree 49 25.1 Associate’s degree 32 16.4 High school diploma 21 10.8 Did not complete high school 1 0.5

Religious/Spiritual Tradition Agnostic 25 12.8 Atheist 31 15.8 Buddhist 2 1.0 Catholic 33 16.9 Christian (non-Catholic) 63 32.3 Mormon 2 1.0 None 16 8.2 Spiritual but not religious 16 8.2 Taoist 1 0.5 Unitarian 1 0.5 Wiccan/Pagan 5 2.5

58

Ability Status No disability 152 77.9 Mental health disorder 24 12.3 Long-term medical illness 12 6.1 Mobility impairment 9 4.6 Sensory impairment 5 2.6 Learning disability 3 1.5

Political Affiliation Democrat 85 43.6 Independent 54 27.7 Republican 44 22.6 Other 3 1.5 No affiliation 9 4.6

Political Views Very liberal 24 12.3 Liberal 68 34.9 Conservative 38 19.5 Very conservative 7 3.6

Number of Children One 63 32.3 Two 76 39.0 Three 34 17.4 Four 15 7.7 Greater than four 7 3.6 ______Note: Options for racial identity and ability status were not mutually exclusive; participants were instructed to select all that applied to them.

59

Table 2 Parent Sample Variable Descriptive Statistics Variable M SD Range Alpha Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale (ATTYS) Total score 2.85 0.85 0-4 0.98 Genderism subscale 2.97 0.93 0-4 0.97 Advocacy subscale 2.76 0.93 0-4 0.91 School Accommodation subscale 2.21 1.13 0-4 0.78 Fabricated Identity subscale 2.83 0.93 0-4 0.90

Familiarity with Sex & Gender Minorities total score 1.87 1.06 0-4 ---

Preexisting Knowledge of Trans Issues total score 8.43 1.84 0-10 0.71

Lifetime Orientation Test (LOT-R) total score 25.18 8.39 0-40 0.88

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) total score 15.14 5.21 0-24 0.90

Attitudes Toward Transgender Individuals Scale (ATTI) total 55.89 20.69 0-80 0.97 score

Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ) total score 2.58 1.02 0-6 0.85

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) total score 5.91 3.43 0-13 0.80

Schedule of Racist Events (adapted; SRE) total score 13.82 14.64 0-60 0.95

60

Table 3 EFA Eigenvalues and Percentage of Variance Explained Before and After Rotation Before Rotation After Rotation ATTYS Final Factors Eigenvalue % Variance Eigenvalue % Variance Genderism 21.35 52.07 20.99 51.21 Advocacy 2.32 5.66 1.95 4.75 School Accommodation 2.22 5.42 1.86 4.53 Fabricated Identity 1.40 3.41 1.04 2.55

61

Table 4 ATTYS Final Items and Factor Loadings Factor Loadings 3 4 1 2 Items School Fab. Genderism Advocacy Accomm. Identity Trans youth endanger their non-trans peers. .88 -.01 -.15 .04 Trans youth should not be allowed to interact with other children because they will negatively .87 .02 -.22 -.01 influence them. Trans youth may cause other children to become .85 .01 -.06 -.03 gay or trans. Any teen who would date a trans peer must have .85 .03 -.12 -.002 something wrong with them. Trans youth will negatively impact their peers. .78 .05 .09 .05 Trans youth should be discouraged from interacting .76 .11 -.22 .05 with their non-trans peers. Youth who identify as trans are unnatural. .74 .09 .14 -.02 Parents should not permit their trans children to make others aware of their gender identity by telling them, asking to be referred to by a different name .73 .01 .17 .03 and pronouns, and/or express their gender through clothing, behavior, etc., even if the child is expressing a desire to do so. Parents who let their trans child try out different names and pronouns and wear clothes consistent .71 .01 .25 .01 with their stated gender are not taking their child’s best interests into account. I would encourage children to avoid interacting with .70 .10 -.24 .10 trans youth when possible. It is wrong for parents to allow their trans children to dress in their preferred clothes, play with .70 .08 .11 .06 preferred toys, or play on preferred single-gender sports teams or clubs. Trans youth have something wrong with them. .69 .11 .11 .01 Trans youth have the capacity to confuse other .68 -.08 .26 .05 children about their own identity. Trans youth are ill. .68 .19 .08 -.004 Parents who let their child experiment with using different names and pronouns and wear clothes .67 .06 .19 -.02 consistent with their stated gender are damaging their child for good. Parents of trans youth are unreasonable for .65 .08 -.01 .12 expecting other people to accept their child. Trans youth are really just gay youth who haven’t .59 -.01 -.02 .26 figured out that they’re gay yet. Parents who let their trans child try out different names and pronouns and wear clothes consistent .51 .04 .31 .19 with their stated gender are setting their child up for rejection. Trans youth need to be encouraged to live in their .51 .17 .27 .13 birth gender. Trans youth are not old enough to be thinking about .46 .02 .31 .29 their gender identity.

62

Trans children were probably encouraged by their parents to behave in ways that are inconsistent with .44 -.02 .04 .35 their biological gender (e.g. boys wearing pink and girls playing with trucks). Trans youth should not be allowed to dress in clothing consistent with their stated gender in .43 .07 .03 .25 schools. Trans youth should be treated with respect and .06 .79 -.27 -.01 dignity just like other youth. Schools should train their personnel in issues of gender diversity in order to make schools as .01 .71 -.05 .20 inclusive as possible. Schools should be required to have bullying reduction programs that include a focus on bullying -.08 .67 -.02 .16 toward trans and gender diverse youth. Trans youth should be accepted for who they are in .38 .66 -.22 -.09 school and other communities. Youth should be educated about gender identity and gender diversity in order to be open-minded about .27 .66 -.03 -.02 trans peers. Trans youth represent a natural expression of -.03 .62 .34 .16 gender. Schools have an obligation to educate students about the idea that not all people identify with the gender typically associated with their sex assigned -.03 .62 .29 .14 at birth, and not all people identify as a “man” or a “woman”. Parents should allow their children to dress in their preferred clothes, play with preferred toys, play on .21 .59 .04 -.01 preferred single-gender sports teams or clubs while providing support and ensuring their safety. Parents who try to force their child to be comfortable with their birth gender are not acting in .05 .51 .18 -.04 their child’s best interest. Trans youth should not get special treatment at .11 .09 .55 .20 school just because they claim they are different. It is unreasonable for trans youth to expect other people to make special accommodations for them at .37 -.01 .49 .18 school. In school, trans youth should be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that they wish to use, .12 .41 .41 -.03 even if they do not match with the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans youth will likely grow out of it. .08 -.07 -.04 .85 Trans youth are just going through a phase. .10 .01 -.09 .81 Trans youth will in all likelihood change their minds -.08 .21 .05 .70 about their gender identity in the future. Trans children are just following a popular trend. .06 .12 .04 .68 Trans children are just seeking attention. .40 .01 .10 .40 Note: Items for each factor are listed in descending order based on loadings. Boldfaced text indicates items assigned to each factor.

63

Table 5 Intercorrelations among ATTYS Full Scale and Subscales ATTYS School Fabricated Genderism Advocacy total Accommodation Identity ATTYS total 1 .97** .84** .75** .82** Genderism .97** 1 .72** .67** .76** Advocacy .84** .72** 1 .60** .61** School Accommodation .75** .67** .60** 1 .60** Fabricated Identity .82** .76** .61** .60** 1 Note: **p<.01

64

Table 6 Convergent and Discriminant Validity for ATTYS Full Scale and Subscales ATTYS School Fabricated Genderism Advocacy Full Scale Accomm. Identity Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale (ATTI) Total .76** .74** .69** .55** .54** Score

Acceptance of Stereotyping -.52** -.48** -.44** -.44** -.46** Questionnaire (AOSQ) Total score

Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) -.01 .01 -.08 -.002 .01 Total score

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Total .05 .06 -.02 -.01 .09 score Note: **p<.01

65

Table 7 Predictive Validity for ATTYS Full Scale and Subscales ATTYS School Fabricated Genderism Advocacy Full Scale Accomm. Identity Familiarity with LGBTQ Individuals .26** .25** .17* .23** .24** total score

Preexisting Knowledge of Trans .40** .39** .41** .09 .39** Issues total score

Schedule of Racist Events-Adapted -.11 -.13 -.03 .02 -.15 (SRE) total score Note: *p<.05; **p<.01

66

Table 8 Teacher Sample Demographics Variable n % Gender Cisgender men 9 23.1 Cisgender women 30 76.9

Age (M, SD) 40.5 (8.6)

Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 34 87.2 Gay 3 7.7 Bisexual 2 5.1

Race Caucasian 38 97.4 Multiracial 1 2.6

Relationship Status Married 24 61.5 In a Committed Relationship 8 20.5 Single 3 7.7 Divorced 2 5.1 Dating, Not in Committed Relationship 1 2.6

Education Level Graduate degree 26 66.7 Bachelor’s degree 13 33.3

Religious/Spiritual Tradition Agnostic 1 2.6 Atheist 2 5.1 Buddhist 1 2.6 Catholic 12 30.7 Christian (non-Catholic) 8 20.5 Greek Orthodox 1 2.6 Jewish 4 10.2 None 5 12.8 Spiritual but not religious 4 10.2 Quaker 1 2.6

Ability Status No disability 34 87.2 Mental health disorder 3 7.7 Sensory impairment 2 5.1 Learning disability 1 2.6

Political Affiliation Democrat 22 56.4 Independent 6 15.4 Republican 8 20.5 No affiliation 3 7.7

Political Views Very liberal 7 17.9

67

Liberal 21 53.8 Moderate 9 23.1 Conservative 2 5.1

Number of Children None 15 38.5 One 3 7.7 Two 15 38.5 Three 4 10.3 Greater than four 2 5.1

Professional Role Classroom teacher 31 79.5 School administrator 4 10.3 Creative arts teacher 1 2.6 Other 3 7.7

Type of School Public school 25 64.1 Private school 10 25.6 Independent school 10 25.6 School for specialized populations 5 12.8 Charter school 2 5.1 Magnet school 1 5.1 Online school 1 5.1

Subject(s) Taught All subjects 5 12.8 Social Studies/History 6 15.4 Mathematics 6 15.4 Sciences 4 10.3 English 3 7.7 Psychology 2 5.1 ESL 2 5.1 Foreign languages 2 5.1 Law 1 2.6 Theatre Arts 1 2.6 Note: One participant chose not to answer relationship status item; Options for type school were not mutually exclusive; Seven participants chose not respond to subjects taught item

68

Table 9 Teacher Sample Variable Descriptive Statistics Variable M SD Range Alpha Attitudes Toward Trans Youth Scale (ATTYS) total score 3.36 0.53 0-4 0.96

Familiarity with Sex & Gender Minorities total score 2.74 0.94 0-4 ---

Preexisting Knowledge of Trans Issues total score 9.62 0.67 0-10 0.21

Lifetime Orientation Test (LOTR) total score 25.92 8.31 0-40 0.87

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) total score 15.67 4.12 0-24 0.83

Attitudes Toward Transgender Individuals Scale (ATTI) total score 69.71 10.61 0-80 0.92

Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ) total score 2.19 0.97 0-6 0.84

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) total score 6.46 2.97 0-13 0.74

Schedule of Racist Events (adapted; SRE) total score 12.59 10.71 0-60 0.92

69

Table 10 Teacher Sample Correlations with ATTYS Raw Total Score ATTYS Raw Total Score Familiarity with LGBTQ Individuals total score .57**

Preexisting Knowledge of Trans Issues total score .16

Life Orientation Test (LOTR) total score -.02

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) total score -.04

Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale .83** (ATTI) total score

Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire (AOSQ) -.28 total score

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale .07 (MCSDS) total score

Schedule of Racist Events-Adapted (SRE) total .12 score Note: **p<.01

70

Appendix

Survey Items

What is your current age?

______

What is your gender? (Note: Cisgender is the opposite of transgender--it means your gender identity matches with the sex you were assigned at birth.)

o Cisgender man (1)

o Cisgender woman (2)

o Transgender man (3)

o Transgender woman (4)

o Genderqueer/Gender fluid (5)

o Other: (6) ______

How would you describe your sexual orientation?

Heterosexual (1)

Gay (2)

Lesbian (3)

Bisexual (4)

Queer (5)

Other: (6) ______

71

How would you describe yourself in terms of race/ethnicity?

Caucasian (1)

Black/African-American (2)

Asian (3)

Native American (4)

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5)

Other: (6) ______

Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic?

o Yes (1)

o No (2)

How would you describe your political affiliation?

o Republican (1)

o Democrat (2)

o Independent (3)

o Other: (4) ______

o No affiliation (5)

In general, would you describe your political views as:

o Very conservative (1)

o Conservative (2)

o Moderate (3)

o Liberal (4)

o Very liberal (5)

72

How many children do you have?

______

What are the ages of your children? Check all that apply.

0-2 years (1)

3-5 years (2)

6-12 years (3)

13-18 years (4)

18+ years (5)

73

How would you describe your ability/disability status? (Check all that apply)

I do not identify as having a disability or impairment (1)

A sensory impairment (vision or hearing) (2)

A learning disability (e.g. dyslexia) (3)

A long-term medical illness (e.g. cystic fibrosis, epilepsy) (4)

A mobility impairment (5)

A mental health disorder (6)

A disability/impairment not listed above: (7) ______

What is your relationship status?

o Single (1)

o Dating, not in a committed relationship (2)

o In a committed relationship (3)

o Married (4)

o Divorced (5)

o Widowed (6)

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

o Did not completed high school degree (1)

o High school degree or equivalent (GED) (2)

o Some college, did not receive degree (3)

o Associate's degree (4)

o Bachelor's degree (5)

o Graduate degree (6)

74

How would you describe your present religious/spiritual tradition, if any? (For example, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, Spiritual but not religious, None...)

______

Familiarity with LGBTQ Individuals As far as you know, are you personally acquainted with any individuals who identify as: Yes (1) No (2)

a transgender adult (1) o o a transgender child/teen (under 18) (2) o o a gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer adult (3) o o a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer child/teen (under 18) (4) o o

If you answered "yes" to any of the 4 items above, how well do you know the person(s) you were thinking about?

Extremely well (e.g. a close family member, close friend, or romantic partner) (1)

Very well (e.g. a friend or colleague ) (2)

Moderately well (e.g. a neighbor or extended family member) (3)

Slightly well (e.g. an acquaintance) (4)

Not well at all (e.g. someone you've met once or twice) (5)

Transgender Knowledge Questionnaire Please answer the following items by choosing the best answer to each question from the available choices. Please answer each item to the best of your knowledge.

75

1. Transgender is a term typically used to describe:

o individuals who identify with the sex they were assigned at birth who are attracted to both members of the same sex and the opposite sex (1)

o individuals who identify with the sex they were assigned at birth who wear clothing typically associated with the opposite sex (2)

o individuals whose gender identity and/or expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth (3)

o individuals who identify with the sex they were assigned at birth who are primarily attracted to members of the same sex (4)

2. Gender identity refers to:

o all of the external characteristics and behaviors that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine, such as dress, grooming, mannerisms, speech patterns and social interactions (1)

o a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a man, woman or some other gender, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth (2)

o whether an individual is perceived as a man or a woman by others (3)

o which groups of individuals a person is sexually attracted to (4)

3. Gender expression refers to:

o all of the external characteristics and behaviors that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine, such as dress, grooming, mannerisms, speech patterns and social interactions (1)

o a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a man, woman or some other gender, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth (2)

o whether an individual is perceived as a man or a woman by others (3)

o which groups of individuals a person appears to be sexually attracted to (4)

76

4. The difference between “sex” and “gender” is such that:

o gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women; sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define the boundary between male versus female (sex organs, hormone levels, secondary sex characteristics) (1)

o sex refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women; gender refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define the boundary between male versus female (sex organs, hormone levels, secondary sex characteristics) (2)

o there is no difference; they are interchangeable terms (3)

o for transgender individuals, there is a difference between the terms but for others, there is no difference (4)

5. If an individual refers to themselves as a “transwoman”, this likely means that:

o they were assigned as female at birth but identify as a man (1)

o they were assigned as male at birth but identify as a woman (2)

o they identify as a man but enjoy dressing in stereotypically feminine clothing (3)

o they identify as a woman who is primarily attracted to other women (4)

6. “Transitioning”:

o refers to a transgender individual’s decision to tell others about their gender identity but does not refer to receiving medical interventions (1)

o refers to a time in childhood when transgender individuals begin showing interest in activities, clothing, and toys typically associated with the opposite gender (2)

o refers to a transgender individual’s process of developing and assuming a gender expression to match their gender identity which may include coming out to others, changing one’s name, and/or receiving hormonal or surgical treatment (3)

o refers only to the process of a transgender individual receiving surgery in order align their anatomy with their gender identity (4)

77

7. An individual who identifies as transgender:

o is attracted to individuals of the same gender (1)

o is attracted to individuals of the opposite gender (2)

o is attracted to both individuals of the same gender and the opposite gender (3)

o may be attracted to individuals of any gender identity or expression, it varies from person to person (4)

8. Cisgender refers to:

o an individual who showed signs of being transgender from an early age (1)

o an individual whose gender identity “matches” with the sex they were assigned at birth (2)

o an individual who is transgender who has had hormone therapy (3)

o an individual who identifies as transgender who has not yet come out to others as being transgender (4)

9. “Cross-dresser” is a term used to describe:

o a transgender individual; transgender and cross-dresser are interchangeable terms (1)

o an individual who dresses in clothing traditionally or stereotypically worn by the other gender, but who generally has no intent to live full-time as the other gender (2)

o a child who enjoys playing with toys and engaging in activities typically associated with the opposite gender (3)

o individuals who are primarily sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex (4)

78

10. Individuals who identify as transgender:

o have certainly had medical treatment (hormones, surgery, etc.) in order to align their anatomy with their gender identity (1)

o may or may not have had medical treatment and if they have not, may or may not wish to do so in the future (2)

o have already come out as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual (3)

o have already had their identifying documents (driver’s license, passport, etc.) changed to reflect their gender identity (4)

LOT-R Please be as honest and accurate as you can with the following questions. Try not to let your response to one statement influence your responses to other statements. There are no "correct" or "incorrect" answers. Answer according to your own feelings, rather than how you think "most people" would answer. 2- I neither 0- I agree a lot 1- I agree a 3- I disagree a 4- I disagree a agree nor (1) little (2) little (4) lot (5) disagree (3)

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. (1) o o o o o

It's easy for me to relax. (2) o o o o o If something can go wrong for me, it will. (3) o o o o o I'm always optimistic about my future. (4) o o o o o I enjoy my friends a lot. (5) o o o o o It's important for me to keep busy. (6) o o o o o I hardly ever expect things to go my way. (7) o o o o o I don't get upset too easily. (8) o o o o o I rarely count on good things happening to me. (9) o o o o o

79

Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me o o o o o than bad. (10) BRS Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. 1- Strongly 5- Strongly 2- Disagree (2) 3- Neutral (3) 4- Agree (4) Disagree (1) Agree (5)

I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times (1) o o o o o

I have a hard time making it through stressful events o o o o o (2)

It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event o o o o o (3)

It is hard for me to snap back when something bad o o o o o happens (4)

I usually come through difficult times with little trouble (5) o o o o o

I tend to take a long time to get over setbacks in

my life (6) o o o o o

80

ATTYS Despite the fact that there are many terms that people use to describe their identity (e.g. gender diverse, gender expansive, gender non-binary, gender creative), for the sake of brevity the umbrella term trans* will be used throughout this questionnaire to mean persons whose gender identity (sense of oneself as a “man” or a “woman” or on a spectrum from “man” to “woman”) and/or gender expression (expression of oneself as masculine or feminine in behavior, manner, and appearance) does not conform to what is typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

This questionnaire is designed to measure the way you feel about trans* youth (up to age 18). There are no right or wrong answers, please answer as openly and honestly as you can based on your own attitudes and opinions.

Note: The following statements do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or ideas of the researchers, but rather reflect an attempt to capture a wide range of attitudes and beliefs. 3- Neither 1- Strongly 5- Strongly 2- Disagree (2) Agree nor 4- Agree (4) Disagree (1) Agree (5) Disagree (3)

Schools should train their personnel (teachers, staff, administrators) in issues of gender diversity o o o o o in order to make schools as inclusive as possible. (1)

It is unreasonable for trans* youth to expect other people to make special o o o o o accommodations for them at school. (2)

Youth who identify as trans* are unnatural.

(3) o o o o o

Trans* youth will likely grow out of it. (4) o o o o o Parents should not permit their children to receive medical treatments (e.g. hormones, hormone blockers or surgeries) to o o o o o alter their outward appearance so it better matches their gender

81

identity. (5)

Trans* youth represent a natural expression of o o o o o gender. (6)

Trans* youth are ill. (7) o o o o o Trans* youth need to be encouraged to live in their birth o o o o o gender. (8)

Trans* youth should be accepted for who they are in schools and o o o o o other communities. (9)

Trans* youth should not be allowed to interact with other children because they will o o o o o negatively influence them. (10)

Trans* children were probably encouraged by their parents to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their biological o o o o o gender (e.g. boys wearing pink and girls playing with trucks). (11)

Trans* youth endanger their non-trans* peers.

(12) o o o o o

Any teen who would date a trans* peer must have something wrong with o o o o o them. (13)

82

I would encourage children to avoid interacting with trans* youth o o o o o when possible. (14)

Trans* youth will in all likelihood change their minds about their gender o o o o o identity in the future. (15)

It is wrong for parents to allow their trans* children to dress in their preferred clothes, play with preferred toys, o o o o o play on preferred single-gender sports teams or clubs. (16)

Parents who let their child experiment with using different names and pronouns and wear clothes consistent with o o o o o their stated gender are damaging their child for good. (17)

Trans* youth should not be specifically protected by any laws at school. o o o o o (18)

Schools have an obligation to educate students about the idea that not all people identify with the gender typically o o o o o associated with their sex assigned at birth, and not all

83

people identify as a “man” or a woman”. (19)

Trans* youth have the capacity to confuse other children about their own o o o o o identity. (20)

Schools should be required to have bullying reduction programs that include a focus on bullying o o o o o toward trans* and gender diverse youth. (21)

Parents should allow their children to dress in their preferred clothes, play with preferred toys, play on preferred single-gender sports teams or o o o o o clubs while providing support and ensuring their safety. (22)

Parents who let their trans* child try out different names and pronouns and wear clothes consistent with their stated o o o o o gender are not taking their child’s best interests into account. (23)

Parents who let their trans* child try out different names and pronouns and wear clothes o o o o o consistent with their stated gender are

84 setting their child up for rejection. (24)

Trans* youth should not get special treatment at school just because they o o o o o claim they are different. (25)

Parents of trans* youth are unreasonable for expecting other

people to accept o o o o o their child. (26)

Trans* youth may cause other children to become gay or o o o o o trans*. (27)

Youth should be educated about gender identity and gender diversity in order to be open- o o o o o minded about trans* peers. (28)

Parents who try to force their child to be comfortable with their birth gender are not o o o o o acting in their child’s best interest. (29)

Trans* youth are really just gay youth who haven’t figured out that they’re o o o o o gay yet. (30)

Trans* youth will negatively impact their peers. (31) o o o o o

Trans* youth should be treated with respect and dignity just like o o o o o other youth. (32)

85

Trans* youth are just going through a phase. (33) o o o o o

In school, trans* youth should be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that they wish to use, even if they o o o o o do not match with the sex they were assigned at birth. (34)

Trans* youth have something wrong with them. (35) o o o o o

Trans* youth should be discouraged from interacting with their non-trans* o o o o o peers. (36)

Trans* youth should not be allowed to dress in clothing consistent with their stated o o o o o gender in schools. (37)

Trans* youth are not old enough to be thinking about their gender o o o o o identity. (38)

Trans* children are just seeking attention. (39) o o o o o Trans* children are just following a popular trend. (40) o o o o o

Trans* youth are experimenting with an alternative identity the way all youth o o o o o experiment with many things. (41)

86

Parents should not permit their trans* children to make others aware of their gender identity by telling them, ask to be referred to be a different name and pronouns, o o o o o and/or express their gender through clothing, behavior, etc., even if the child is expressing a desire to do so. (42)

What age range were you primarily thinking about when you answered the set of questions above?

o Young children (ages 2-5) (1)

o School age children (ages 6-12) (2)

o Adolescents/teenagers (ages 13-18) (3)

To what extent would your answers have differed if you were thinking about a different age range than the one you indicated?

o Quite a bit (6)

o Somewhat (2)

o Not at all (3)

If you answered "somewhat" or "quite a bit" above, please briefly explain why?:

______

87

ATTIS This questionnaire is designed to measure the way you feel about working or associating with transgendered individuals. It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers. Answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by indicating a number beside each one as follows: strongly agree = 1, agree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, disagree = 4, strongly disagree = 5. 3- Neither 1- Strongly 5- Strongly 2- Agree (2) Agree nor 4- Disagree (4) Agree (1) Disagree (5) Disagree (3)

It would be beneficial to society to recognize transgenderism o o o o o as normal (1)

Transgendered individuals should not be allowed to work o o o o o with children (2)

Transgenderism is immoral (3) o o o o o All transgendered bars should be closed down (4) o o o o o

Transgendered individuals are a viable part of our society (5) o o o o o

Transgenderism is a sin (6) o o o o o Transgenderism endangers the institution of the family (7) o o o o o

Transgendered individuals should be accepted completely into o o o o o our society (8)

Transgendered individuals should be barred from the

teaching o o o o o profession (9)

There should be no restrictions on transgenderism o o o o o (10)

88

I avoid transgendered individuals whenever o o o o o possible (11)

I would feel comfortable working closely with a transgendered o o o o o individual (12)

I would enjoy attending social functions at which transgendered o o o o o individuals were present (13)

I would feel comfortable if I learned that my neighbor was a transgendered o o o o o individual (14)

Transgendered individuals should not be allowed to cross dress in public o o o o o (15)

I would like to have friends who are transgendered o o o o o individuals (16)

I would feel comfortable if I learned that my best friend was a transgendered o o o o o individual (17)

I would feel uncomfortable if a close family member became romantically involved with a o o o o o transgendered individual (18)

Transgendered individuals are really just closeted gays o o o o o (19)

89

Romantic partners of transgendered individuals should seek o o o o o psychological treatment (20)

90

AOSQ

Please respond to each of the questions below based on how much you agree or disagree with each statement. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much on any individual item. 0- 1- 3- Neither 2- Slightly 4- 5- 6- Strongly Moderately Agree nor Disagree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree (3) Agree (5) Agree (6) Agree (7) (1) (2) (4)

Sometimes when I meet new people, I can predict their behavior or attitudes just from o o o o o o o knowing what social/cultural groups they belong to (1)

In daily life, there's so much to pay attention to, it helps if you can make a few o o o o o o o assumptions about a person (2)

When interacting with others it’s very important to have a sense of what o o o o o o o social/cultural groups they belong to (3)

Stereotypes can be harmful but they are essential for interacting with members o o o o o o o of real groups (4)

People differ so much from one another, it is impossible

to generalize o o o o o o o about them (5)

You cannot get through life without generalizing o o o o o o o about people,

91

even though such generalizations may be overstated (6)

It’s impossible to know how a person will behave from knowing what social/cultural o o o o o o o groups the person belongs to (7)

If you hold a stereotype about people you’ll never be able to see them for who o o o o o o o they really are (8)

Stereotypes have too much influence on our behavior toward others o o o o o o o (9)

To hold a stereotype does not necessarily mean that you

are looking o o o o o o o down on someone (10)

If we did not stereotype each other, there would be a lot less o o o o o o o conflict in the world (11)

Stereotypes are useful in daily life even though they are not always o o o o o o o correct (12)

92

MCSDS

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it relates to you. True (1) False (2)

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. (1) o o I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my own way. (2) o o On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. (3) o o There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they

were right. (4) o o

No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. (5) o o There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. (6) o o I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. (7) o o I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. (8) o o I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. (9) o o I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. (10) o o There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. (11) o o

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. (12) o o I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. (13) o o

93

SRE (adapted)

We are interested in your experiences with discrimination. Please think back throughout your LIFETIME and consider whether you feel you have ever felt discriminated against based on a minority status (including but not limited to: sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religion, age, ability status, etc.) As you answer the questions below, please think about your ENTIRE LIFE, from when you were a child to the present. For each question, please choose the number that best captures the things that have happened to you. Answer each question TWICE, once for what has happened to you IN THE PAST YEAR, and once for what YOUR ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN LIKE thus far.

If you do not believe you have ever experienced discrimination, please leave this questionnaire blank.

1. How many times have you been treated unfairly by teachers and professors because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life?

(2) o o o o o o

2. How many times have you been treated unfairly by your employers, bosses, and supervisors because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year?

(1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

94

3. How many times have you been treated unfairly by your coworkers, fellow students and colleagues because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

4. How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in service jobs (store clerks, waiters, bartenders, bank tellers and others) because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life?

(2) o o o o o o

5. How many times have you been treated unfairly by strangers because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year?

(1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

95

6. How many times have you been treated unfairly by people in helping jobs (doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, dentists, school counselors, therapists, social workers and others) because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

7. How many times have you been treated unfairly by neighbors because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year?

(1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

8. How many times have you been treated unfairly by institutions (schools, universities, law firms, the police, courts, the Dept of Social Services, the Unemployment Office and others) because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

96

9. How many times have you been treated unfairly by people that you thought were your friends because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

10. How many times have you been accused or suspected of doing something wrong (such as stealing, cheating, not doing your share of the work, or breaking the law) because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life?

(2) o o o o o o

11. How many times have people misunderstood your intentions and motives because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

97

12. How many times did you want to tell someone off for being prejudiced (related to your minority status) but didn't say anything? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

13. How many times have you been really angry about something discriminatory that was done to you? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year?

(1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

14. How many times were you forced to take drastic steps (such as filing a grievance, filing a lawsuit, quitting your job, moving away, and other actions) to deal with some discriminatory thing that was done to you? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

98

15. How many times have you been called a derogatory name or slur based on your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

16. How many times have you gotten into an argument or a fight about something discriminatory that was done to you or done to somebody else? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year?

(1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

17. How many times have you been made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm because of your minority status? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

99

18. How often do you feel discriminated against by people who DO NOT KNOW that you identify as a minority? 5- Most Of 6- Almost All 3- Sometimes 4- A Lot (26- 2- Once In The Time Of The Time 1- Never (1) (10-25% of 49% of the Awhile ( (50-70% of (>70% of the the time) (3) time) (4) the time) (5) time) (6)

How many times in the past year? (1) o o o o o o

How many times in your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

19. How different would your life be now if you HAD NOT BEEN treated in a discriminatory and unfair way? 3- Different 4- Different 5- Different 1- Same As 2- A Little 6- Totally In A Few In A Lot Of In Most Ways Now (1) Different (2) Different (6) Ways (3) Ways (4) (5)

In the past year? (1) o o o o o o In your entire life? (2) o o o o o o

100

Additional Items Included in Teacher Survey

What is your current professional role?

o Classroom teacher (1) o Creative arts teacher (e.g. music, art) (2) o Paraprofessional (e.g. teacher's aide) (3) o School administrator (e.g. principal) (4) o Counselor (5) o Substitute teacher (6) o School librarian (7) o Other: (8) ______

What subject(s) do you primarily teach, if applicable?

______

101

At what type of school do you primarily work? (Choose all that apply)

Public (1) Private (2) Independent (3) Charter (4) Magnet (5) Parochial/Religiously affiliated (6) Vocational (7) Therapeutic School (8) School for specialized populations (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing, students of different abilities) (9)

Online-based School (10) Military academy (11) Other: (12) ______

102

References

Anderson, R. T. (2016). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Threaten

Freedom. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/11/sexual-orientation-and-gender-

identity-sogi-laws-threaten-freedom

APA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns Office, & APA Public and

Member Communications. (2011). Answers to Your Questions About Transgender

People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Balingit, M. (2018, February 12). Education Department no longer investigating

transgender bathroom complaints. Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/12/education-

department-will-no-longer-investigate-transgender-bathroom-complaints/

Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.

Psychological Reports, 71(3 Pt 2), 1155–1160.

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1992.71.3f.1155

Birnkrant, J. M. & Przeworski, A. (2017). Communication, advocacy, and acceptance

among support-seeking parents of transgender youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian

Mental Health, 21(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2016.1277173

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A

new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

103

Burke, M. C. (2011). Resisting pathology: GID and the contested terrain of diagnosis in

the transgender rights movement. In Sociology of Diagnosis (Vol. 12, pp. 183–

210). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1057-6290(2011)0000012013

Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2002). Transgender issues in counselor preparation.

Counselor Education and Supervision, 41(3), 233–242.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01286.x

Carroll, L., Gilroy, P. J., & Ryan, J. (2002). Counseling transgendered, transsexual, and

gender-variant clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(2), 131–139.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00175.x

Carter, J. D., Hall, J. A., Carney, D. R., & Rosip, J. C. (2006). Individual differences in

the acceptance of stereotyping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1103–

1118.

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of

participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-

face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354.

Garrett, M. L. (2012). The LGBTQ component of 21st-century music teacher training

strategies for inclusion from the research literature. Update: Applications of

Research in Music Education, 31(1), 55–62.

https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123312458294

104

Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The

strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral

Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., Howell, T. J., & Hubbard, S. (2005). Parent reactions

to transgender youth gender nonconforming expression and identity. Journal of

Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 18(1), 3–16.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v18n01_02

Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,

10(1–2), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v10n01_03

Herek, G. M. (1988a). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates

and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477.

Herek, G. M. (1988b). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates

and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477.

Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice.

Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4560.2007.00544.x

Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the

Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53(7–8), 531–544.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x

Hirsch, A. J. (2007). Future teachers’ attitudes and anticipated behaviors toward sexual

minority youth. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(9), 3807.

105

Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory

statistics using generalized linear models. Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028075

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

doi:10.1177/001316446002000116

King, M. E., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study

on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong.

International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1), 17–34.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19317610802434609

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C. & Danischewski, D. J. (2016).

The 2015 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York:

GLSEN.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: A measure of

racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health

consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 144–168.

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://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

Myers, N. D., Ahn, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). Sample size and power estimates for a

confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport. Research Quarterly for

106

Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 412–423.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599773

Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. H. (2010). Sexual orientation and

transgender microaggressions. In Microaggressions and Marginality:

Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (pp. 217–240). John Wiley & Sons.

Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T.

(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex

Roles, 59(7–8), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7

Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2012). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender

people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles,

68(11–12), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as

a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

Philipps, D. (2016, March 23). North Carolina bans local anti-discrimination policies.

The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/north-carolina-to-limit-bathroom-use-by-

birth-gender.html

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-

Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–

125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-

JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

107

Sausa, L. A. (2005). Translating research into practice: Trans youth recommendations for

improving school systems. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1),

15–28. doi:10.1300/J367v03n01_04

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from

neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of

the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6),

1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063

Silveira, J. M. & Goff, S. C. (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

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008).

The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972

Steinmetz, K. (2014, December 15). Why It’s Best to Avoid The Word “Transgendered.”

Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3630965/transgender-transgendered/

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).

Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in

the United Kingdom. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(1),

70–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.851

Walch, S. E., Ngamake, S. T., Francisco, J., Stitt, R. L., & Shingler, K. A. (2012). The

Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale: Psychometric properties.

108

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1283–1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-

012-9995-6