Running head: SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 1

Scholarly Personal Narrative 1

Megan A. Lorincz

Virginia Polytechnic Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 2

Introduction

I am a cisgender, heterosexual female. At first glance, I appear to be a part of majority culture

because of my identity as a cisgendered heterosexual, yet my identity as a female place me in a

more traditionally oppressed category. In reviewing how I came to understand who I am in terms

of this gender identity, the Social-Cognitive Theory of Gender Identity Development comes to

mind. According to Bussey (2011) and Bussey & Bandura (1999), personal, behavioral, and

environmental components are the three main areas for examining the social-cognitive theory of

gender identity development (as cited in Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016, p. 183). In

exploring my own gender identity in terms of this theory, it is my hope to take away useful

observations that may apply to future students and their stories.

Me-Search

In the social-cognitive theory of gender identity development, the personal component is

further broken down into “biological characteristics, self-concept, self-perception, and

regulation” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 183). As a child, I always understood that I was a female, and

I never questioned my biological gender. My father would paint my nails, and I would

coordinate matching outfits. It never once occurred to me that I was anything different from what

I was told. That being said, I did understand that I was not exactly like the other girls; I became

more self-aware. Even from a young age, I was more outspoken and assertive than some of my

female peers. I was a leader, and I did not let the boys on the playground boss me around. As a

begin to mature, I was labeled as “bossy” or “aggressive”; I was not this dainty flower that other

girls appeared to be. I felt more masculine in the way that I presented myself, even though I

knew that I was a girl. I began to hold back and regulate some of my opinions and tried to stifle

some of my more natural behaviors. I chalked my more masculine traits up to the fact that I was
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 3

raised by a stay-at-home dad, so it was only natural that I would pick of some of his mannerisms.

I was a girl, but I did not always know how to act like one.

Next in the social-cognitive theory of gender identity development is the concept of

behaviors, which is defined as “gender-related activity patterns” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 183). I

began to compensate for my traditionally masculine qualities by becoming more hyper-feminine

in the activities that I decided to join and the way that I presented myself externally. Growing up,

I always wore my hair in the customary Asian bowl cut, just the way my family liked it, until

sixth grade when I demanded that my parents let me grow my hair. I began to steer clear of

sports, because they brought out my competitive, louder side, and I found that I much preferred

the arts like painting, music, and theater, because I was able to express myself without fear of

becoming too manly in the way that I presented my art. As a middle schooler, I excelled in math,

but I began to focus less on math in high school than I did in courses like English, History, and

Art. My clothing became more fitted in the hopes to accentuate my feminine frame, which I still

had yet to develop. I also established a sense of humor to deflect any awkward social situations

that might arise, and I hoped that it might make me more likeable as a person. It was easier to

make fun of myself than risk hearing others make fun of my behind my back. As a girl, I could

not be taken too seriously. Even in relationships, I tended to be the more dominant personality to

the outside world, but, behind closed doors, I allowed my boyfriends to tell me how naïve and

frivolous I was. I allowed them to perpetuate the lie that I was weird, unlovable, and

unintelligent because I did not fit the mold of the typical feminine girl-next-door. As late as

college, I continued to pursue more stereotypically “girly” interested and joined a sorority. While

it proved to be one of my better decisions in college, my motives were not as altruistic as one
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 4

might guess. I wanted to have a ton of girls that were my friends instead of feeling like I need to

hang out with the guys.

Finally, Patton et al. (2016) breaks the social-cognitive theory of gender identity

development into the environmental component which “include[s] families, peers, educational

settings, media, and digital contexts” (p. 183). As I touched on previously, family had a

significant role in my development. On top of my existing identity, I am also the only child of

older parents. My parents poured most of their focus on me, and I often felt like I needed to live

up to their expectations. First and foremost, my parents viewed me as a girl, so I was going to be

the best little girl that I could possibly be. My parents bought me dolls and nice dresses; I, in

turn, used all of the gendered items, and I genuinely did not see anything wrong with being

treated like a princess. As for my peers, I desperately wanted to be friends with other girls, but I

tended to gravitate towards hanging out with the boys; I did usually find a handful of girls that

would take the time to truly get to know me, and they became some of the dearest friends of my

life. Since I did not have many friends in general to hang out with, I threw myself into theater,

doing every play or musical possible, and filling any available time that was not devoted to

eating, sleeping, or school. It was not until my freshman year of college that I truly made many

friends that were girls. Most of the girls that I surrounded myself with were also very feminine in

the way that they presented to the world around them, so it only solidified my resolved to

continue portraying this outwardly “girly” version of myself. It also did not help that I was on a

particularly preppy campus and that I was a self-proclaimed “E News junkie,” both of which

constantly portrays femininity as pink, meek, air-headed, toned, waxed, and perfect. In

retrospect, my idea of my own gender identity was heavily influenced by the people and
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 5

situations around me, which supports the idea that “gender is a socially constructed, interactive

process” (Robbins & McGowan, 2016, p. 72). I let the world define what femininity was to me.

We-search

While the aforementioned story is unique to me, I still think that my experience can be

useful to other students. First, my story highlights how complex gender identity truly is; I, much

like other students, do not fit into one singular box of either being completely masculine or

feminine. While I still identify as a cisgender woman, I acknowledge that I sometimes express

myself in more traditionally masculine ways. However, it begs the question “who defines what is

feminine and what is masculine?” The simple answer is: society. It is in society’s definition of

what is truly “masculine” or “feminine” that students can feel that they are either measuring up

to or they are not. It is important as student affairs professionals to create safe spaces for students

to explore their identities, and to encourage students to push past society’s expectations. I would

have been much happier sooner, if I had had some to tell me that I was perfectly fine just the way

that I was in terms of my gender expression. The people around students make a huge impact on

how they view themselves. According to Nicolazzo (2016), a safe space might encourage “a

radical reconceptualization of what higher education environments could look like if the

diversity of human experience and expression were allowed to flourish rather than be restricted”

(p. 555). It is now up to student affairs professionals to create an environment of positive

reassurance and guidance.

There is little to nothing that higher education professionals can do on a personal level for

students in terms of the social-cognitive theory of gender identity development by virtue of the

fact that this component is completely internal and individualized to that specific student.

However, student affairs practitioners can influence the environment which can, in turn,
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 6

influence behavior. If football was not a gendered sport on a campus, then the resulting behavior

may be more women joining football intermural teams. If women were encouraged to join

science majors by seeing more female professors as teachers, then there may be a balance of

genders in the existing science fields. If a campus featured more male dancers in advertisement

campaigns, then it might encourage more males to try out dancing instead of dancing being

perpetuated as a woman’s hobby. If I had been in an environment in middle school that had

encouraged me to be a leader on the sports team, rather than dub me as an aggressive girl, then I

might not have seen sports as a guy thing and kept with it. While this is all still theoretical, it

may be worth exploring because “when theories are created through a critical lens, the

possibilities for healing, liberation, and radical social change are revealed” (Jones & Stewart,

2016, p.17). In short, if the environment changes, then the behavior might change.

Identities, in general, are complex amalgamations of many aspects of self. According to

Robbins and McGowan (2016), “gender cannot be understood in isolation from other social

identities” (p. 9). In other words, in order to understand a person’s gender, one cannot solely look

at one aspect of that person and assume to know all about his or her gender, but they should

consider the intersectionality of all of the identities. All of my identities, such as gender, race,

religion, socio-economic status, make up who I am, and, as a practitioner, I need to recognize

that one identity will not define my students. Denton (2016) states that “intersectionality

challenges educators to see how students live multifaceted lives and encounter oppression—or

enjoy privilege—in different aspects of their lives” (p. 61). In moving forward, it is important to

respect a person’s gender expression, but it is useful to get know more about a student then the

way he or she expresses himself or herself. A student’s race might play an integral role as to why

they perceive their gender identity in a certain way. There may be a story as to why they choose
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 7

to act a certain way, much like I struggle with outward forms of hyper-femininity in the hopes to

balance out masculine traits.

Conclusion

My identity as a cisgender female did not develop overnight. There were many factors

and moments that played into who I am today. Much of it had to do with society and how I felt

that I was measuring up to the expectations that were placed on me. It is through the interplay of

the social-cognitive theory of gender identity development’s components of person, behavior,

and environment that I am beginning to understand my own development and to see the

development of students around me. As a student affairs practitioner, I recognize that a student’s

gender identity development can be a hard and scary step in a student’s journey, so it is up to

administrators to provide safe spaces for students to explore. There is some onus on

administrators to work to change the environment so that students can change behaviors in order

to better understand gender identity. Finally, gender identity is only one aspect of a student, and

gender identity is influence by a myriad of other identities, so it should not be considered on its

own. Overall, students’ gender identities play a large role in the college experience, and it should

be taken into consideration when student affairs practitioners are working with them.
SCHOLARLY PERSONAL NARRATIVE 8

References

Denton, J. (2016). Critical and poststructural perspectives on sexual identity formation. . In E.

Abes, S. Jones & S. Watt (Eds.) Critical perspectives on student development theory (pp.

71-83). San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Jones, S. & Stewart, D. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. Abes, S. Jones &

S. Watt (Eds.) Critical perspectives on student development theory (pp. 71-83). San

Francisco: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). “Just go in looking good”: The resistance, resilience, and kinship-building

of trans* college students. Journal of College Student Development, 57(5), 538-556. The

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Patton, L., Renn, K., Guido, F., & Quaye, S. (2016). Student development in college. San

Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Robbins, C. & McGowan, B. (2016). Intersectional perspectives on gender and gender identity

development. In E. Abes, S. Jones & S. Watt (Eds.) Critical perspectives on student

development theory (pp. 71-83). San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.