In this post I’ll be summarising the results of a survey I ran for eight days, from 15th to 23rd April 2016.

The survey sought to find out how Mx is pronounced, splitting results by group. It asked people how they pronounced Mx, and it also asked whether the participant’s title was Mx, about gender identity, about location (UK and outside UK), where the participant identified on the trans/cis spectrum (if anywhere), and where the participant identified on the nonbinary/binary spectrum (if anywhere).

It was promoted mainly through Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit - and some participants told me that they would share with interested friends too. After removing 4 abusive responses there were 505 usable responses.

You can see the full results here on Google Sheets.

~

Here are two more visual summaries of the responses:

I recently blogged a link to someone else’s informal results analysis of their survey into neopronouns, and they rightly said that sometimes you have to prove things that everyone already knows. This survey is no exception.

We learned that:

• Cis and binary people are far less likely to know how to pronounce Mx, topped only by people whose title is not Mx.
  
• Trans and nonbinary people are more confident about its pronunciation, and people whose title is Mx are most confident.
• My experience that UK folks like the schwa and non-UK folks prefer Mix was confirmed, but I was interested to find that people in the UK are far more confident of its pronunciation generally.

And finally, out of curiosity I put together a table to compare various groups.

[Note: “Are Mx” includes people whose title is sometimes or always Mx.]

These results appear to support the hypothesis that nonbinary and trans people are much more likely to use the title Mx for themselves, which is perhaps not surprising.

It is also worth noting that 20% of nonbinary people don’t use Mx as their title, and that number is likely to be higher outside of this survey - there will have been bias due to Mx being mentioned in promotion of the survey, resulting in a disproportionate number of people taking part who use Mx as their title.

There are other curious snippets to be gleaned from this table - such as:

• Nonbinary participants were much more likely to feel that the cis/trans spectrum didn’t fit them. (3% of binary respondents identified as neither cis nor trans, whereas 29% of nonbinary respondents did.)
  
• People whose title is Mx are apparently more likely to identify with the cis/trans spectrum. (18% of participants whose title was not Mx didn’t feel the cis/trans spectrum fit them, whereas only 16% of participants who were Mx didn’t fit that spectrum.)
• The 9 binary people who use Mx do so “sometimes”, but of the 10 cis people who use Mx, 3 do so “always”. These numbers are not high enough to be representative, but I found them interesting anyway.
  

And finally, I was reassured that there were several responses in the feedback box telling me that they had never heard of Mx. It told me that the survey had made it out of the usual small circle of nonbinary and trans followers, which I think makes the data more useful.

Thank you everyone for your support, promotion and participation! These results are more useful and more detailed than the last set, and I am grateful for everyone’s efforts. I hope this summary has been helpful and/or interesting.

This list is from the spreadsheet for the 2016 worldwide results, where there were 3055 useable responses, and 179 unique identity words or phrases entered.

Most commonly entered at the top, with number of times entered and percentage in brackets.

• Nonbinary (1975, 65%)
• Genderqueer (1243, 41%)
• Trans (1063, 35%)
• Agender (944, 31%)
• Transgender (943, 31%)
• Fluid gender/genderfluid (942, 31%)
• Enby (477, 16%)
• Demigender (452, 15%)
• Transmasculine (434, 14%)
• Neutral (420, 14%)
• Questioning or unknown (397, 13%)
• Androgyne (380, 12%)
• Woman (or girl if you are younger) (363, 12%)
• Trans* (272, 9%)
• None/I do not describe my gender (259, 8%)
• Man (or boy if you are younger) (232, 8%)
• Neutrois (207, 7%)
• Transfeminine (200, 7%)
• Bigender (123, 4%)
• Third gender (84, 3%)
• Intergender (47, 2%)
• Cisgender (26, 1%)
• Genderflux (25, 1%)
• genderless (17, 1%)
• Femme (14, 0%, so everything below here is 0%)
• maverique (12)
• gendervoid, voidgender, void (8)
• gender non-conforming (8)
• trigender (7)
• two-spirit (7)
• Polygender (7)
• Agenderflux (6)
• transfeminine (6)
• Queer (6)
• Butch (5)
• gendervague (5)
• aporagender (5)
• Transsexual (5)
• gender variant (4)
• human/person (4)
• genderfuck(ed) (4)
• apogender (4)
• Male (4)
• boy (adult) (4)
• femme nb, nb femme, etc. (3)
• greygender (3)
• pangender (3)
• masculine of centre (3)
• Mixed gender (2)
• Demiagender (2)
• non-gendered (2)
• genderpunk (2)
• boi (2)
• Fluid agender/agenderfluid (2)
• Female (2)
• genderweird (2)
• androgynous (specifically not androgyne) (2)
• genderful (2)
• Transwoman (2)
• confused (2)
• alexigender (2)
• geek (2)
• Transman (1)
• null / no gender (1)
• Other (1)
• guy (1)
• intersex(ed) (1)
• FTM/female to male (1)
• post-gender (1)
• aliagender (1)
• multi-gender(ed) (1)
• fairy or faery (1)
• transfemale (1)
• videgender (1)
• tomboy (1)
• Mutogender (1)
• plural (1)
• ilyagender (1)
• ambigender (1)
• librafeminine (1)
• witch (1)
• FTMTX (1)
• genderfree (1)
• hybrid (1)
• trans boi (1)
• androgynous woman (1)
• fluid centering just androgynous of female (1)
• androgynous genderqueer transwoman (1)
• nonbinary guy (1)
• culturally female (1)
• voidboy (1)
• feminine genderflux (1)
• fluidflux (1)
• libramasculine (1)
• nonbinary, but woman aligned (1)
• woman-aligned (1)
• blank (1)
• bakla (1)
• ladyboy (1)
• a Literal Mess (1)
• grey-agender boy (1)
• Star Trek extra (1)
• transqueer (1)
• nonbinary boy (1)
• neuter (1)
• egogender (1)
• nondual (1)
• nerd (1)
• boyflux (1)
• demifluid (1)
• kid (1)
• not cisgender (1)
• rejects gender (1)
• demifemme (1)
• androfem (1)
• virgender (1)
• eldrigender (1)
• nb (1)
• female fiction (1)
• herm (1)
• paragender (1)
• nonbinary gendermeh (1)
• magiboy (1)
• genderchill (1)
• pretty boy (1)
• dandy (1)
• bordergender (1)
• demimasculine (1)
• gender related to “girl” (1)
• well, ‘woman’ seems simplest, let’s just go with that (1)
• winkte (two spirit) (1)
• tunte (german) (1)
• x-jender (1)
• nonhuman (1)
• transgender androgyne (1)
• ambi-binary (1)
• angenital (1)
• dual gender (1)
• alien (1)
• gender non-compliant (1)
• autistic (1)
• gender-abolitionist (1)
• of trans experience (1)
• androgyne of centre (1)
• juxera neutroisflux (1)
• differently gendered (1)
• bear (1)
• demigal (1)
• queer trans person of colour (qtpoc) (1)
• stargender (1)
• mahu (1)
• non-male (1)
• afraid (1)
• butch/femme/mix (1)
• not defined (1)
• all genders (1)
• i caucus with women (1)
• [angry profanity] (1)
• [blank panic] (1)
• transgender female (1)
• cassgender (1)
• somewhat feminine most of the time (1)
• girlfing (1)
• None Of Your Business (1)
• gender disobedient (1)
• divigender (1)
• ladydude (1)
• transfemme (1)
• girl aligned (1)
• nth gender (1)
• monstrous (1)
• nonbinary girl (1)
• demiflux (1)
• femme boy (1)
• autisgender (1)
• traumagender (1)
• faegender (1)
• xenogender (1)
• queer who don’t care (1)

Gender Census 2021: UK Summary

Who? Everyone in the UK whose gender doesn’t tidily fit into the female/male binary.

What? An online survey asking participants how they describe themselves and how they would like other people to refer to them.

When? February to March 2021.

Participants: 5,411

The full report:click here

Raw data and summary tables:See list on full report

~

IDENTITY WORDS

The top five were:

1. nonbinary – 65.2%
2. queer (partially or completely in relation to gender) – 45.4%
3. enby – 33.7%
4. trans – 31.0%
5. gender non-conforming – 27.7%

~

TITLES

The top 5 were:

1. Mx – 32.7%
2. No title at all – 28.9%
3. Mr – 8.1%
4. Miss – 6.2%
5. Non-gendered professional or academic title (e.g., Dr, Rev, military rank) – 5.3%

~

PRONOUNS

Here’s the top 5:

1. Singular they – they/them/their/theirs/themself (plural verbs, i.e. “they are a writer”) – 79.0%
2. She – she/her/her/hers/herself – 30.7%
3. He – he/him/his/his/himself – 30.6%
4. Avoid pronouns / use name as pronoun – 11.5%
5. Xe – xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself – 8.8%

~

Say thanks / Mailing list / Patreon/This summary on the main website

New Post has been published on http://dancecompreview.com/accountability-and-transparency-in-proam-competitions/

Accountability & Transparency in Pro-Am Competitions

Competing at any Pro-Am competition is expensive. Period. For many competitors, the cost of one competition, especially if it is not local and requires plane travel, can cost more than 1 month’s salary. It’s a huge commitment that requires careful thought and research to ensure that the money being spent has the best value for you and your goals, especially if it is the ONE competition you can afford to attend in an entire year.

I am a Canadian Pro-Am competitor who used to compete in the U.S. until the rising prices combined with the increasing exchange rate made it cost-prohibitive. I now try to limit myself to Canadian competitions, but even that takes a lot of pre-thought and planning.

“No Prices for Students”

I, along with other Pro-Am competitors, regularly sift through competition information available online to try to determine what competition might be best to attend. The process can require hours of searching through websites, and more often than not it turns out the information is just not openly available—it has either been taken down with previous year’s information, or you see something similar to this:

“Wholesale package prices are not publicly posted. It is customary for Studios, Teachers & Professionals to add a surcharge to the standard pricing to compensate for the loss of income and teaching time due to the attendance at the competition. These fees may vary and are encouraged and supported by the organizers of this competition.”

I want to be clear and up-front. As a Pro-Am student, I 100% support the practice of charging to compensate for loss of income, it just makes sense. However, what I do object to is the implication that competition prices are kept private to enable studios, teachers and professionals to inflate them without any accountability.

Personal Experience

Early in my competing career, I fell victim to this. It does happen. For me, it came down to naivety of the Pro-Am system and a lack of understanding about how competitions are priced. While I batted an eye at the rather large package price, it didn’t occur to me that the studio had inflated the price on top of their other listed fees to compensate for work and lost time. It took two competitions costing me much more than $10,000 each before I started doing research and asking questions. What I learned, shocked me. Needless to say, I no longer dance at that studio.

Small Progress

That was more than 5 years ago, and I am happy to report that I have seen some changes in this area. More and more competitions are openly posting their prices or making them available to whomever asks without question (despite their website saying differently), and research shows it is more common for prices to be openly available in Canada than the U.S. Even 3 years ago, if I requested wholesale prices I would have been grilled about my status (Are you a Pro-Am student? What studio do you represent? Do you have a registration number?) and even denied access as a Pro-Am student.

“Our Events are Always Well-Contested”

Another area where it is commonly difficult to find information, especially in Canada, is
previous year’s results. If you are similar to me, you prefer to have an idea of whether or not you are likely to be contested at a competition before signing on the dotted line. However, it appears to be common practice in Canada for organizers to remove previous year’s results from their website about 3 months after a competition is over, and especially when registration for the following year is open. Those familiar with compmngr by Richard Douglass will also know the frustration of trying to find results for a specific event vice an individual competitor.

I have heard examples from credible sources of instances where students are assured by their instructors (via the organizers) that a competition is well contested (5-6 couples or semi-finals) only to arrive and find themselves virtually uncontested in every event. In talking with some American competitors, a negative experience such as this has led or would lead them to rule out competing anywhere in Canada again. It’s disappointing to hear this when there ARE fun, strong, and well contested competitions out here in Canada that are attended by some of the top pro/am competitors in North America (many of whom live and train in Canada). The actions of a few have the potential to undermine the system as a whole.

Being Part of the Solution

How can organizers be held accountable for the transparency and honesty of information related to their competitions? I used to be part of the group complaining about the lack of transparency and accountability, and felt that as a Pro-Am student, I was powerless to do anything to address these issues. But I refused to accept that, and instead I decided to take some action.

My solution has been to create a website – ProAm Dance Canada, that compiles and organizes information in one place for all Canadian Pro-Am competitions that is available YEAR ROUND, regardless of what happens with individual competition websites.

I have also begun compiling entry number information for multi-dance events into easy-to- read charts on each event’s page. The information is openly available without cost or need to ask for it. Pro-Am in Canada is growing. Good things are happening. It’s hard work and a huge investment to train and compete in Pro/Am, wherever you do it. Be openly and honestly informed. Here is the website again, and can’t wait to hear from fellow Pro-Am competitors!

Author:Anonymous Pro-Am Dancer
Photography:Stephen Marino Photography
Exclusively for Dance Comp Review