The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 1 - 29

#FUUFS5IBO.PTU

participants. More recently, Kortegast (2017)
identiﬁed policies and practices that rendered
information about inclusive space being inaccessible to LGBT students, which contributed
to students' perceptions that residence life
staff were unsupportive or incapable of preventing incidents of harassment in residential
communities.
Studies that look speciﬁcally at trans* students are few, since most of the postsecondary
LGBT scholarship focuses on non-trans*, LGB
participants (Marine & Catalano, 2015). Krum,
Davis, and Galupo (2013) reviewed genderinclusive housing policies at 18 higher education institutions across the United States prior
to asking college-age transgender students
about their preferences for this housing. They
noted that ﬁve types of housing are included
in the gender-inclusive housing umbrella:
(a) same room/different sex pairings, (b) apartment-style, (c) gender identity assignment,
(d) evenly split groups, and (e) singles. They
noted that though gender-inclusive housing
was initiated by trans* students, many policies do not prioritize trans* students in assigning space. Students reported more comfort
with apartment-style housing and singles,
and they were more likely to attend an insti-

tution with those options. Additionally, more
than 80% of students preferred assignments
that were dependent upon students opting
into gender-inclusive housing, and 80% believed that students should sign a community
agreement articulating their commitment to
support diverse gender identities. Pryor, Ta,
and Hart (2016) argued that heterogendered
institutions, policies, and interactions systematically discriminate against trans* students
in housing. Their ﬁndings included mention
of the time/effort it took to navigate gender
expression and the loneliness and discrimination experienced, as well as the development of
coping strategies, which accompanied trans*
students' experiences of institutional genderism. Regarding the last effect, a common
response of housing administrators was to relocate trans* students to live alone, sometimes
despite the student's preference to remain
with others. While these studies are instructive, more scholarship could deepen our understanding of trans* students' experiences in
campus housing units. None of the previous
scholarship described here has focused exclusively on trans* students who have lived in
gender-inclusive housing. Our study aims to
address this gap.

METHOD
Students reported signiﬁcant
TUSFTTSFMBUFEUPUIFQPTTJCJMJUZ
that housing infrastructure would
OPUCFQSFQBSFEUPTVQQPSUUIFJS
gender identity.

Research questions broadly explored trans*
students' experiences in gender-inclusive
housing, speciﬁcally: (1) How have trans* and
non-binary students accessed gender-inclusive
housing, and what was the ease or difﬁculty of
doing so? (2) What has this housing offered
them in terms of increased safety, empowerment, and sense of belonging? (3) Which
aspects of the housing are supportive to their

7 0 - 6 . &
/0 t

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 1