Running head: Final Exam 1

Final Exam
Nicholas DeGraw
Northern Illinois University
 2
Final Paper

Part I

The society we live in today has created a space where gender and sexuality is viewed as

black and white. Aspects of peoples identities like gender, sex, and sexuality are viewed as

being one of two aspects. People can only be man or woman, gay or lesbian, masculine or

feminine. This is clearly flawed, as the human experience allows for a variety of many types of

people and expressions of identity. Because of many of the issues associated with the binary

system, students who identify as trans* face a unique set of challenges. Jourian (2015) argues

that in determining these categories as the norm, we are endangering anyone who does not fit

into these categories. Genderism is apparent in the campus climate, and while there is certainly

great oppression facing students who may be gay, lesbian, and bisexual, there is an additional

level of danger placed on students on campus who stray from said gender binary. Because of

this, The Lev model was created.

There are three significant theories which are used to combat these systems of oppression

and inequity. These theories are postmodern feminism, queer theory, and critical postmodern

theory. I identify as a feminist, and I appreciate that postmodern feminism allows space for those

who identify themselves as female, regardless of whether or not they have always been assigned

that gender. These theories are all very important because they challenge the heterosexual and

cisgender norms of society. The Lev model was created using these three theories together to

demonstrate sex, sexuality, and gender fluidity as they relate to one another. The Lev model

contains the four categories of sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. Each of these

words are illustrated as a linear arrow with labels on each end identifying as male/masculine or

female/feminine. This model certainly illustrates that there are other identities aside from the
 3
Final Paper
labels ascribed by the gender binary, but the issues that Jourian (2015) found with it is that it still

does not quite challenge the social constructs of masculinity and femininity. Instead, each end of

the spectrum are understood as normative, (464) and everything else is lost somewhere in the

middle. While important to acknowledge that there is an everything else, Jourian (2015) felt

there was a way to improve upon this so that it was not simply a linear continuum.

Jourians (2015) model takes the Lev Model and modifies it to resolve the

abovementioned critiques. In this new model, the four arrows are transformed into triangular

shapes which allows for the addition of a third label in each. Assigned sex refers to the

medically assigned identity given to an individual at birth. The problem with assigned sex is that

doctors and parents almost always will choose to assign either male or female to the child based

on the presence or absence of a penis(described as phallocentric), even if the genitalia does not

necessarily have a penis or vagina. This is described as intersex, and many will put their children

through surgical operations and decide which gender that child will be. This is problematic for

many reasons, especially if the child grows up feeling as though they were assigned to the wrong

gender. This speaks toward a childs gender identity which is how a person interprets their

gender. Jourian added gender nonconforming because there are people who do not feel as

though the assigned gender identities prescribed to a person of either male or female applies to

them. There are many ways a person may choose to identify or interpret their gender, and labels

can also include genderqueer and agender. Gender expression refers to how ones identity is

expressed, and androgynous is now included to give a term to those who have traits that are both

masculine and feminine. Separating this from gender identity may be difficult, but is important.

Sexual orientation refers to an attraction that a person feels toward another person. This was the

adjustment that had the most improvements, as language changed from heterosexual and
 4
Final Paper
homosexual to men, women and more than one gender. This is important because an attraction

does not always correlate to a sexual identity, and this gives those the freedom to self-identify as

they feel appropriate.

Some more important takeaways from this theory is that it was made to take power away

from the cisgender and heterosexual normativity. By illustrating each aspect of ones identity as a

plain that is flexible to interpretation, rather than a line, it gives power to those identities that

previously would have been in the more ambiguous middle. The dominant identities are no

longer the pillars for which to base the other identities. It is also important to pay attention to

how the separate identities relate to and work with each other, rather than being a cause and

effect toward the others. An example of this is that there may be an assumption that a trans

woman would be attracted to men, but that is not always the case. Sexual orientation is a

completely separate identity from gender identity, but the experiences of each may affect a

persons overall experiences. If nothing else, the takeaway from this piece should be that trans

people face incredible challenges and oppression, and that there is not one type of trans, but

rather a myriad of people with identities and personalities who each share similar but different

experiences.

A strength of this new theory is that it is mostly up-to-date with modern research on the

subject. Student development theories have a reputation of being largely outdated which is

problematic in its neglect of many salient aspects to identity. As found in Evans, Forney, Guido,

Patton & Renn (2010), theorists, like Cass for example, have historically focused on white gay

and lesbian cisgender individuals and miss the mark in many areas. There is a great amount of

progress in this regard of giving a voice to students who identify outside of labels that

historically have been utilized in these discussions.

 5
Final Paper
That being said, intersectionality is an area that is lacking in many, if not all, of these

theories. As theorists including Lev, Cass, DauGali, and Jourian all study differences in gender

and sex development, it still does not show how this experience translate to students with other

marginalized or oppressed students. These experiences are crucial to the identities of students as

it may affect the entirety of their experience. Through a group research project we performed at

Northern Illinois interviewing students, we found students raising concerns that a lot of the work

done in the student affairs field still creates a safe space for LGBT individuals who identify as

white, but does not do a good job supporting these students of other races and ethnicities. While

the study was made to focus on this one aspect of an identity, a more progressive step may have

been to adjust it to allow for all aspects of how ones identity relates to their gender expression

and identity.

There are other critiques to be made of Jourians (2015) model as well. In an attempt to

combat the binary labels, simply adding a third label did not account for all the variations of

these identities as may have been intended. This makes the model a bit messy, and without

having seen the Lev model to base it off, it would require a lot of explanation. A specific

concern is that it was still missing the mark in terms of representing a multitude of identities was

in the sexual orientation portion. The three categories here consist of men, women and more

than one gender. This operates under the assumption that a sexual attraction must exist, and for

those who do not feel any type of attraction toward any gender may not be represented by this

model. To relate a personal experience, I had the opportunity to work as a Resident Advisor in a

community which provided gender neutral housing. One of the homes residents identified as

both agender and asexual. They had a conversation with me in which they explained how they

felt they were not only underrepresented, but that those who shared this identity seemed simply
 6
Final Paper
to not exist. Because of pronouns, they had to constantly correct those on their correct gender

pronouns as people had difficulties adjusting their language. Because of this, a model would be

more effective to leave out these labels completely and leave a space for people to self-identify

as appropriate.

In conclusion, this model addresses some really key concepts and is ultimately a large

step forward from many previous theories. With some tweaking, it could be one that student

affairs professionals would be wise to study. As Jourian (2015) stated, the Lev model could be a

good choice to use when teaching those with very little knowledge on different gender and

sexual identities. Moving forward, Jourians (2015) model would be a great step forward. The

theories which inspired this model are incredibly important in working with students. Using

postmodern feminist, queer and critical postmodern theories, we can begin to challenge the

binary systems that keep our LGB and especially trans* students thrive through college.

References
 7
Final Paper
Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student development in college

theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jourian, T. (2015). Queering Constructs: Proposing a Dynamic Gender and Sexuality Model.

The Educational Forum, 459-474.

 8
Final Paper
Part II

Studying student development theory, we have spent an entire semester evaluating many

theories on how development and particularly on how students fit into these theories. The

question proposed is if more development is better. To answer this question, I will go through

several theories we have studied. To initially answer this question, it depends on the theory. I

have a unique perspective on student development theory which makes this question difficult to

answer. My own personal theory is one that does not believe that development is something that

goes up and gets better. Instead, student development is far more sporadic and can go in many

different directions. Because of this, it would be inaccurate to make the statement that more

developed is better. However, this would be different if the development is referring to a specific

aspect of an individual and their growth towards improvement in said area. Then, more

developed would certainly be better.

To start, I will go on to state why more developed is not necessarily better. When

discussing development of students, one of the most recurring concepts we saw throughout the

semester was that of self-authorship. In his theory of consciousness, Kegan describes make

meaning of the world around them and how they understand their experiences. Much of this

theory centers around an individuals development in regards to their age. Order 0 includes

infants who understand everything as an extension of self. Over time in these orders, individuals

begin to understand the world in more realistic terms. The final order 5 of this theory states that

it is hardly ever reached, and only those forty years old or older may reach it. This stage means

that people see beyond their own reality to understand how everything connects. While these

understandings may be very insightful for the holder, the statement that this is better is just not

true. There is a lot to be said about how a child interprets the world. Obviously children do not
 9
Final Paper
have a life full of experience, but the argument could be made that they are a fresh pair of eyes to

the world. While adults may overcomplicate and think into things more than they need to,

younger children may be able to view the world simply as it is. So, in some regard, less

developed has potential to be better as well depending on perspective. (178-180)

Baxter-Magoldas theory of self-authorship is similar in its model. The different stages

typically refer to a person moving along a timeline type of journey. The difference here is that it

focuses all around the same age group of young adults. The implication in this theory is that

young adults are inherently stuck on a path that has been predetermined, and that self-authorship

may not be achieved until these plans are challenged and students realize that they are meant for

something else. Part of this implies that everyone should be aspiring to that final stage, but it is a

fair argument that those who are following a path ascribed to them by authorities may be in a

good position, depending on individual situation, and that there is no need for challenge. This

would be an exception rather than the rule, but it certainly proves the point that more developed

is not inherently better.

It would be unfair to make the claim that any one person is better than another person

solely because they are more developed, according to a theory, than the other. Everyone is on

their own individual journey towards discovering who they are and their role within the world. I

would view it as a negative thing for someone to believe that they have reached their final level

of development and that there is no more possibility of more development. At this point, more

developed becomes worse and I would say is a large step backward. Complacency is the

opposite of development.

This could still be true despite the individuals perception of themselves and how

developed or not they are. For anyone to gauge anothers level of development will never be
 10
Final Paper
accurate. I may have an opinion of a professional who I feel has reached the pinnacle of

development. This person may have many degrees, a lucrative career, a family, and speak with

grace an eloquence, but the second we decide that person is more developed is the point where

we hinder our own growth. I would never claim to be fully developed. However, I can take the

time to reflect on my own growth and development, and use it as a tool to get myself where I

want to get.

This question had me reflect on my own journey of development. I have had a long

journey and am much more confident and comfortable with my own identities and life path. I

come from a background where my family and religious community placed a lot of pressure on

me to live a life that was essentially already planned out for me. I am able to put myself into

Baxter-Magoldas theory of self-authorship (184-185). I had my life planned out for me but I

had come to the realization that this was not what I wanted for myself, and the identities assigned

to me were not necessarily how I viewed myself. A large part of this journey of self-authorship

involved my sexual orientation and gender expression. Over the years, I came to realize that I

was not attracted to women as I was supposed to be. This caused a great amount of internal

conflict as this would not align with the life that I was supposed to have, and had always thought

I would have. This realization caused me to reflect on my priorities and how I felt about my

situation. While I was going through Baxter-Magoldas theory, I was simultaneously

experiencing aspects of Casss model of Sexual Orientation Identity Formation (308-309).

Sexual orientation development is unique, as it is a large aspect of a persons identity which

many may not be aware of for the majority of their young life. While Casss theory cannot apply

to everyone equally, due to so many different experiences, reaching that final stage of

development in my own sexuality has always been important to me. The final stage of Casss
 11
Final Paper
theory is identity synthesis. Due to my identity, this sense of being more developed in terms of

an identity that has caused me great turmoil and distress would be better for me personally

than how I was in the identity confusion state. The emotions and experiences are not accounted

for in the theory, but this was a long period of time where I felt that there must be something

wrong with me and I could not figure out that was. This is why I make the claim that although it

is not automatically better to be more developed, for many it creates a better experience for an

individual to become more developed and it is something to be strived toward.

I have a strong preference for theories which are non-linear, as it gives more room for

development to be relative to the individual, rather than feeling a need to progress along a

journey to attain a certain level of development. For example, Chickerings Theory in Evans et

al (2010) utilizes the seven vectors, and each of the vectors represents a different area in which

a person could grow and develop. One of these vectors, for example, is the vector on managing

emotions. While Chickering is implying that students are learning how to appropriately express

and control their emotions, I view this as a very broad experience. Managing emotions could

mean many different things for different people, and based on how the student perceives their

surroundings, this could mean many different things. For some, learning how to effectively

manage anger so not to become aggressive would be a great goal. This type of development

would most likely viewed by the individual as a positive one, and therefore better than lashing

out in violence due to an angry emotion. Others however, may develop to a point where they

feel they are repressing their emotions so much to not let it affect their lives, that it may have an

opposite effect. There are many different ways this vector and the others may be interpreted, so

while it does not account for all experiences, it is a great example to prove the point that more

developed does not always mean better.

 12
Final Paper
In conclusion, I want to highlight the importance of the individual experience in gauging

success. Nobody can decide what more development means for another person, and therefore,

we cannot make the grand statement that more developed is inherently better. Instead, more

developed is simply that- more developed.

References
 13
Final Paper
Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student development in college

theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.