Veronica DeSantisParticipatory Research and Social Inquiry 15
December 2013Final Report Pronouns (Still) Matter: How Gender
Non-binary Individuals Choose and Use Preferred Pronouns in
Different Social Contexts Topic and BackgroundI chose this topic of
pronoun use among those who identity as gender non-binary because I
find it interesting how expressing non-binary identities is
complicated by the nature of pronouns in English. The only
grammatically correct singular pronouns in the English language are
he and she. By there not being any formally accepted singular
gender neutral pronouns, non-binary people are marginalized. On top
of this they also remain largely invisible even within the LGBTQ
community. Jackie Regales observed in the essay My Identity is
Fluid as Fuck that mainstream culture may be more accepting of what
she terms new sexualities, such as gay and lesbian, than new
genders which is still a radical and abnormal possibility (97).
Based on the data I collected, some people, though far from most,
have begun to accept the use of singular they but this is still not
considered proper English. Again, from looking only at the data I
collected, I found that there actually exist a wealth of gender
neutral pronouns even if most people are not aware of them. There
were nine different sets of pronouns which I personally observed
being used. These sets were they/them, ey/em, e/em, ze/hir, ze/zir,
ze/zan, xe/xyr, per/pers, and Phe/Phe's. This study hopes to raise
awareness of gender neutral pronouns because if language can work
to marginalize non-binary identities then perhaps increasing
awareness of other pronouns could also help increase the non-binary
communitys visibility. Although there has been some research done
on how non-binary individuals, the only literature directly related
to pronoun usage among them is a study from last semester on which
my study is based titled Pronouns Matter: How Genderqueer
Individuals Negotiate Pronoun Usage. This study was conducted by
Jessyca Murphy and Summer Carrick and though it also focused on
pronoun usage among non-binary individuals there were a few key
differences between that study and my own. For their study they
only sought participants who identified as genderqueer. My study
invited anyone whose gender identity sometimes or always falls
outside the male/female binary to participate. This can include
people with identities such as genderqueer, genderfluid, gender
nonconforming, and agender. The previous study touched on the
relationship between preferred pronouns and social interaction with
others but my study focused only on that topic. Whereas the other
study explored what pronouns are used by genderqueer individuals,
the definition of genderqueer, and how one makes sense of their
gender identity, my study exclusively addressed how individuals
negotiate their own as well as others pronouns in different social
contexts. For this study a social context refers to the
relationship between the gender non-binary individual and another
person. The social contexts that I will look at in my study are
friends, family, coworkers/classmates, and meeting people for the
first time. Murphy and Carrick stated that if they could continue
their research they would themselves have focused more on preferred
pronouns in social interactions which gives me confidence that my
study will be making new progress rather than just retreading old
ground. Another similarity between the previous study and my own is
the goal. The goal of the past study was to build a model for how
to approach individuals with a gender presentation one cannot
identify. My goal started out the same but has changed slightly
over the course of my research. My goal has shifted from a model
which seeks to help those approaching someone with an ambiguous
gender expression to a model which can be used when meeting anyone
new for the first time. This is due to gender identity and gender
expression sometimes being unrelated. For example, someone may
identify as genderqueer and prefer the pronoun they but have a
gender expression which is feminine and therefore leads them to
being mislabeled she by others. This example also illustrates that
not all gender non-binary individuals have an androgynous gender
expression which one cannot identity, but their gender identity
still may be identified incorrectly. This divide between gender
identity and expression is not something which has always been
reflected in queer literature (Understanding Gender). In those
instances gender expression has been painted as an external
manifestation of gender identity. Theory by prominent figures such
as Judith Butler can be interpreted as directly contesting this
connection. Butler proposed the landmark theory that gender is a
performance (Jagose 87). Although she believes this performance is
compulsory and not something one actively chooses to do day to day,
she does use drag as an example of a type of performativity. Drag
illustrates that gender is not natural or original but rather a
construct (86). Drag is a prime example of gender identity and
expression being at odds with each other since the point of it is
to present yourself with a gender expression opposite that of your
gender identity. It demonstrates that gender identity and
expression can be dissonant. I will show later that the existence
of this dissonance was also asserted by participants in the study.
As with the past study, this study used a feminist
social-constructivist approach. I sought to combine feminism with
the assertion, made by theorists such as Butler, that gender is a
social construct. Some feminist groups have historically reinforced
the gender binary such as those admitting only womyn-born womyn
into their ranks (Reagales 94). This is even more damaging than one
might think because when marginalized groups are rejected by other
marginalized groups this may be an even deeper and more painful
blow than poor treatment from mainstream society (94). Therefore it
is especially important for feminists to be allies of queer
communities. Using a feminist approach for this study was a small
step that I could personally take to bridge the gap between the two
groups. The study also brings in complementary theory from Kate
Bornstein. Bornstein, like Butler, rejects gender as natural and
instead refers to it as cult-like behavior (117). She relates the
gender binary to a class system where one side will always have
more power over the other (113). This notion of privilege,
especially of cisgendered over otherly-gendered, is something that
was integral to the selection of Participatory Action Research as
my methodology.My research question evolved slightly during the
research process. Originally it only asked how individuals choose
their preferred pronouns but as the study preceded I realized that
how they use their preferred pronouns was also relevant. This was
because I found that choosing a preferred pronoun did not
necessarily mean that it would also be used by an individual in the
same way in every social context. Examining how pronouns were used
also gave insight which could be applied to the strategies I
assembled for the studys goal.
Research Question1. How do those whose gender identity sometimes
or always falls outside of the male/female binary choose and use
their preferred pronouns in different social contexts?
MethodsThe methodology I used for my study was Participatory
Action Research which was selected for three main reasons. First,
it was in line with my goals of raising awareness of or giving
voice to those whose identity falls outside of the gender binary.
Second, PAR is a valuable tool when seeking to create social change
which this study sought to do by educating individuals on how to
respect others preferred pronouns. Finally, reflexivity is already
an integral part of PAR and I determined a high level of
reflexivity was desirable for this study. PAR therefore naturally
aligned with the methods and goals of my study. The two methods I
used to collect data were interviews and a survey. Both of these
utilized the same nine open ended questions. Reflexivity was
important in my study because I am not a member of the gender
non-binary community. As a cisgender female, I did not want my
point of view and privileges to prevent me from conducting a study
which was respectful and helpful to those who are non-binary.
Therefore self-reflexivity was important to me so that I could try
my best to be aware of my own feelings and experiences which I
hoped would also facilitate awareness of my privileges/biases and
how they influenced my study. I decided to keep a weekly journal
throughout the entire research process which I uploaded onto the
WordPress site which I created as a headquarters for the project.
This site was password protected and required that contributors be
invited by email. In order to quality for an invitation one must
have participated in the study either by being interviewed or
taking the survey. The larger purpose of the site however was not
self-reflexivity but reflexivity among the participants. I wanted
my study to be as transparent and accessible as possible and to
potential get feedback on everything I did. I posted what I
believed to be a comprehensive overview of all information related
to the study including who I am, why I wanted to conduct the study,
what I hoped to accomplish, the purpose of the website, the weekly
blog posts which included any progress or updates on the study, my
research proposal, transcripts of interviews Id conducted, and
preliminary data analysis. It was my hope that participants would
also take part in either data analysis or offer feedback which
would shape my own as well. Again, these measures were taken as an
effort to augment my own point of view and so that I could tailor
the study better to what would most benefit my participants. As I
will discuss later, one of the shortcomings of my study was that
ultimately I was not very successful in cultivating participant
reflexivity using the website. Originally I intended to use
grounded theory to analysis my data but decided instead to use a
general inductive approach. The first reason I decided to make this
change was based on practicality. The time and resource constraints
of the project, as well as the wealth of data I received, meant
that it simply would not have been feasible for me to do line by
line coding unassisted. I also realized that since I intended to
have participants be part of analyzing my data that using a formal
system may have prevented them from taking part in analysis or from
understanding my own. I wanted every aspect of my study to be as
assessable as possible and so I deemed it necessary to adopt a more
informal approach which could be easily understood and used by
those who have never encountered data analysis in an academic
setting. As I mentioned previously I collected data though
interviews and a survey. I chose to use a survey because it is easy
to distribute online and does not require my direct involvement to
administer it. Interviews were also done in order to get greater
insight from participants than could be done with the survey and so
that the data from the interviews could be compared to the survey
to assess trustworthiness. Both interviews were conducted over text
chat on Skype per the preference of the participants. Participants
were recruited exclusively through the websites Facebook and
Tumblr. With the permission of the administrator, I posted messages
seeking participants to Facebook groups and pages associated with
The New School and New York University which were LGBT friendly. I
also sent messages to people within my own networks for them to
further distribute to people in their networks. The majority of the
participants however, were from Tumblr. As a gateway to the study
for Tumblr users I created a static Tumblr which hosted basic
information about the study including who I am, why Im doing the
study, a summary of my research proposal, a link to take my survey,
and a form to contact me. I also directly contacted potential
participants on Tumblr by sending private messages to users which
openly self-identified as a gender identity which fell outside of
the male/female binary. This private message was later shared by at
least one participant with their followers on Tumblr which
contributed to attracting more participants. Overall, I conducted 2
interviews and received around 90 responses to the survey. After
filtering out surveys which were blank or completed by those whose
gender identity did not fall outside the male/female binary I was
left with 55 responses. Although I was not interested in what the
preferred pronouns of participants are for the purpose of the
study, it was still the first question in the interview and survey
in order to determine if any responses were from binary
individuals. In keeping with time restraints and the pilot nature
of the study I analyzed both interviews and 10 surveys. Although it
was not mandatory for participants to answer every question in the
survey, in order to make my analysis richer I chose surveys which
gave some sort of response to every question. AnalysisAs I stated
previously, I used a general indicative approach when doing my data
analysis. In keeping with the approach not all of the text was
coded, only that which was relevant to my research. In addition,
one segment of text may have had more than one code applied to it
and therefore fallen into separate categories. My research question
was integral to deciding which segments of text were relevant and
therefore required coding and which were not. I used inductive
analysis and so did not start with any codes but instead allowed
all of them to emerge from the data. After coding I categorized the
codes and then put these categories into two overarching groups.
The reason that the data fit into two larger groups is because
there were basically two separate things I wished to accomplish
with this research. I wanted to answer my research question and I
also wanted to identify strategies for respecting preferred
pronouns. There is a little overlap between these groups but
separating them as I did was a useful organizational tool which
helped with my initial thematic analysis. All of the coding and
categorizing were done in HyperResearch. For simplicity and time I
abbreviated preferred pronouns as PP in the code book. Overall
there are 17 codes, 4 categories, and 2 overarching groups. For
each of the 4 categories the major theme which can be associated
with it are in italics next to each category. The number in
parenthesis next to each code is the number of times that code
occurred in all of the interviews and surveys I analyzed.
Code Book How individuals choose and use PP Choosing
PP/Accommodation Aesthetic/personal reasons for PP (10) Making
others comfortable (14) Protecting personal safety/comfort (11)
Talking about PP/Reaction Avoiding a gender discussion (12)
Starting a gender discussion (4) Being asked about PP (12) Telling
PP without being asked (4) Correcting people about PP (16) Reaction
when non PP are used (9) Strategies for respecting PP Figuring out
others PP/Evasion Asking for PP (7) Name as a cue (3) Visual cues
(10) Verbal cues (4) Using they until PP are known (7) Social
groups and respect for PP/Agency Family (8) Friends/others (12)
LGBTQ community (12)
Accommodation When it came to participants selecting their
preferred pronouns two different factors emerged which influenced
their selection. These factors were personal preference and
accommodating others. A minority cited choosing pronouns only bases
on personal preference such as I like the letter "z" a lot, so I
prefer to use ze/zir or I chose they because I didn't personally
like the sound of zie/hir. I found that most participants chose
preferred pronouns, as one participant put it basically: to make
other people comfortable. The pronoun they was especially popular
with my participants since it is already a part of common speech so
people don't have to learn new words and theres no need explaining
it. Since it already exists in the English language it is easier to
get other people to accept and use. A few participants reported
preferring other gender neutral pronouns but giving others the
option of using they instead as a way to make them more
comfortable. One participant reported that I thought I might be
fighting an uphill battle in trying to get people to use unfamiliar
pronouns and so chose to use they. Clearly, it is more important to
some participants that any gender neutral pronoun be used to refer
to them even if it isnt the one they most prefer. I did find that
pronouns may change depending on the social situation an individual
is in. It is tricky to say if preferred pronouns actually change
however. One participant made the observation that preferences do
not change; willingness to express preference does. What can be
said is that pronouns which individuals choose to use to refer to
themselves do sometimes change based on who they are communicating
with. I found that the reason for this change is to protect their
own physical, mental, or emotional safety. For instance one
participant feared the looks, reactions of others, while another
was afraid that if they disclosed their gender identity in the
workplace they might be discriminated against. If they are in a
situation where they are not already out as gender non-binary and
theyre not sure if its an LGBTQ friendly space then some
participants said that they either actively use gendered pronouns
or just kind of accept them when they are incorrectly used by
others. One participant observed that you never know whether people
will respond with acceptance, belligerence or even violence. That
line of thinking is reflected by the majority of participants who
choose to accommodate incorrect pronouns out of fear of negative
repercussions that can come from outing themselves as gender
non-binary. From preferred pronoun selection to the actual use of
pronouns in social situations, accommodating others out of either a
belief that their pronouns are more likely to be respected or out
of fear for their safety, emerged as the major theme.
ReactionThe theme which characterized the way participants
explained talking about their preferred pronouns best was reaction.
As opposed to being proactive with their preferred pronouns by
telling them without being asked or initiating a discussion on
gender to transition into explaining preferred pronouns,
participants reported being far more reactive. This meant that they
were much more likely to communicate their preferred pronouns only
when directly asked or through correcting someone who used the
wrong pronouns to refer to them. A minority of participants said
that there was any situation in which they would tell others their
preferred pronouns with no prompting at all. A few participants
which did sometimes tell their preferred pronouns without prompting
qualified their answers like only when introducing myself to people
in large groups. Participants were more likely to bring up their
preferred pronouns if someone else had already engaged them in a
discussion on gender and therefore it seemed like they would be
cool with it or if they were in an LGBTQ friendly space. A majority
of participants said that a reason they avoid sharing their
preferred pronouns is because they are not comfortable potentially
starting a discussion on gender. One participant said that they do
not share their preferred pronouns with people they think obviously
wanted to make a big deal out of their gender identity. Another
participant said that they don't want to make my gender a talking
point by telling others their preferred pronouns and then possibly
also being asked intrusive questions about their identity.
Participants revealed that a reason they are more comfortable
revealing their preferred pronouns in LGBTQ spaces is because
things like non-binary genders are basically understood and talking
about preferred pronouns doesnt require 10 minutes of explanation.
Besides wanting to avoid a broader discussion on gender a few
participants also reported wanting to avoid a discussion on English
grammar. Although a majority of participants said that they was the
most easily accepted non gendered pronoun by others, not everyone
is accepting of it. A few participants said that they had gotten
into conflicts about whether they/them/their is "correct" in the
singular or not.When it came to correcting others use of gendered
pronouns, most participants said that they do this sometimes but it
depended heavily on the context of the interaction. Most
participants said they were more likely to correct someone that was
either LGBTQ themselves, at an LGBTQ event, someone they were
likely to see again, or someone they like or want to get to know. A
minority of participants stated that they would always correct
others no matter what the context was. Some reasons offered for
this were again avoiding a discussion on gender and fearing for
personal safety. Every single participant reported a willingness to
share preferred pronouns when directly asked in at least some
social contexts. Some were very enthusiastic about the possibility
of being asked such as one participant who said they would
immediately feel welcomed and accepted and much safer and another
which thought it would be an absolute delight to be asked! The only
contexts participants expressed worry about being asked were ones
in which they were not out as gender non-binary or would have a lot
of attention brought to them. One participant said that even though
they would not know what to do if they were asked for preferred
pronouns in front of their family or coworkers that they would far
rather be asked about my preferred pronouns in awkward situations
(I could always lie) than never be. Something that may have
influenced my findings in this area were my participants feelings
when it came to being labeled with the wrong pronouns. About half
of the participants expressed feeling only minor or very little
discomfort when mislabeled. One participant said that when they are
referred to with the wrong pronouns they ignore it while others
said I usually feel a little annoyed, but it's not the biggest deal
ever and I dont particularly mind being referred to with binary
pronouns. Only two participants reported feeling very uncomfortable
or dysphoria when they were mislabeled. One interviewee thought
that people may overestimate how much being mislabeled effects
those who are gender nonconforming since it is one of these big
topics that cisgender people who know about transgender stuff tend
to know about. They pointed out that each individual is unique and
so is effected in a different way by being mislabeled. The way my
participants felt about being mislabeled may have influenced their
other actions when it came to talking about preferred pronouns. For
instance if most of them had felt very uncomfortable when
mislabeled they may have been more likely to correct people who got
their pronouns wrong. From analyzing just the data from these 12
participants though, reaction rather than proactive emerged as the
major theme since they tended to only share preferred pronouns when
prompted by others in some way.
EvasionOne of the most interesting findings of my study was the
conflict between participants reporting that they loved being asked
for their preferred pronouns and yet almost never asking other
people for theirs. When it came to figuring out other peoples
preferred pronouns when meeting them for the first time the theme
that emerged was evasion. Although an overwhelming majority of the
participants reported that they prefer a direct approach when
others want to know their pronouns, when it came to needing to know
the pronouns of others they preferred to try to figure it out
without asking. The most reported strategies for determining
someones preferred pronouns were using visual or verbal cues. Only
one participant said that they always asked others for their
pronouns when meeting them for the first time. The two major
problems participants cited about asking others for their preferred
pronouns was causing offense and starting a gender discussion they
did not want. Two participants voiced concerns that their
sensitivity to preferred pronouns could out themselves as otherly
gendered. This is very similar to how participants were
accommodating of others when it came to using their pronouns. Both
evasion and accommodation have roots in fear for personal safety or
a desire to feel comfortable around others. Other participants
expressed worry that they may cause offense if they ask someone
whose gender expression aligns with their gender identity because
they will take offense at the implication that their pronouns are
not obvious from their appearance. Participants were more willing
to ask someone for their pronouns if they could not guess their
gender identity from visual cues or if they were in a space with
was meant for LGBTQ people and therefore it was considered
respectful to ask. As I said, most participants reported that
instead of asking people for their preferred pronouns they would
instead attempt to deduct what they are based on visual or verbal
cues. Two participants reported that they would also base which
pronouns they used on the persons name if they believed it was
gendered one way or another. Most participants said that they used
visual cues such as dress and facial hair though they avoid using
the appearance of their actual body. A few people said that they
also used verbal cues such as pronoun cues from people who already
know the person in question, cues from the person themself about
their own gender (things like, "I am the man!"). An overwhelming
majority of participants reported that when they dont know someones
preferred pronouns they will automatically refer to the person with
the pronoun they. One participant said that they defaulted to using
e/em/eir instead of they. Most participants who did this said that
it was a stopgap measure used only until they could determine the
correct pronoun to use. The reason given for defaulting to they was
that it was the safest option because it did not lead to the person
being offended in the instances where it was not the correct
pronoun. Some also expressed the belief that many people, even
those whose gender falls within the male/female binary, are ok with
being referred to with they.
AgencyWhen it comes to which people respect preferred pronouns
most the theme which emerged was the importance of agency.
Participants reported that their pronouns were most respected by
those, usually friends, who allowed them complete control over
their own gender identity. As one participant stated my friends
respect my pronouns the most because most of them have known me for
a limited amount of time and have never had a say in how I behave,
so they don't feel like they have any control over me and my
identity. Generally participants reported that friends were most
respectful of preferred pronouns while family members were least
respectful. Only one participant said that every social group they
had equally respected their preferred pronouns. Even strangers were
reported to be more respectful than family by some. A few
participants said that their family was least respectful of their
preferred pronouns because also did not respect their agency over
their own gender identity. As one participant observed, compared to
my friends, my family, on the other hand, feels like somehow they
know better than me because they've known me since birth, so they
incorrectly assume they have some sort of say in my gender identity
and expression. One participant said that although their parents
are accepting of their gender identity and try their best to
respect their pronouns they still struggle with adapting to using a
set of pronouns they arent used to. Another participant said that
old friends are doing the worst of non-family when it came to
respecting pronouns because they also had a hard time remembering
to use a new set or pronouns which they were not used to. Friends
were most reported to be respectful but even classmates/students
and strangers with which participants shared their preferred
pronouns were said to be generally respectful of them. Participants
were most likely to share their preferred pronouns with their
friends and family rather than classmates/coworkers or strangers
however. If a participant is close to their family, for instance if
they live with them or receive financial support from them, they
may end up disclosing their gender identity simply because of their
close proximity. This is one reason why participants report that
their family is least respectful of their pronouns and yet they
still share their pronouns or gender identity with their family
more than other groups. When they did share their preferred
pronouns with classmates/coworkers or strangers it tended to be
because these people belonged to the LGBTQ community and so were
considered more likely to be respectful of them. A majority of
participants believed that sharing preferred pronouns in LGBTQ
spaces or with other LGBTQ people did not carry any risk of
intolerance. However, one participant stated that they had met some
LGBTQ identified people who were not tolerant of non-binary
individuals at all, as well as other non-binary people who believed
that we should all use spivak pronouns, and eir attitude towards
others who disagreed meant that I felt threatened by em. Once again
there may be factors tied to my participants backgrounds which have
influenced my findings. Some participants which said that their
family were least respectful of their pronouns also said that their
family did not react well to them coming out as gender non-binary.
It makes sense that if more of the participants families were
supporting of their gender identity that they would also be more
respectful of their pronouns.
Answering the Research QuestionMy research question was how do
those whose gender identity sometimes or always falls outside of
the male/female binary chose and use their preferred pronouns in
different social contexts? The social contexts that I examined were
family, friends, coworkers/classmates, and meeting people for the
first time (strangers). I found that the choice and use of
preferred pronouns did depend on social context. In all of the
contexts the answer came down to a combination of the themes of
accommodation and reaction. When participants felt they were in a
safe space, such as the contexts of being with friends or other
LGBTQ identified strangers, they were more likely to share their
preferred pronouns and to correct people who mislabeled them.
Therefore in this context they were less likely to be accommodating
and more likely to be reactive. This was also the case when meeting
someone for the first time that they believed they would see again
or wanted to get to know better. When participants felt their
safety or comfort was in question, such as with the contexts of
family or coworkers/classmates, they were more likely to be
accommodating and were barely reactive. They were almost entirely
accommodating when it came to strangers which they did not believe
they would see again or did not feel safe around.
Strategies for Respecting Preferred PronounsI intended to craft
these strategies with the help of feedback from my participants.
Since I did not receive this I do not feel comfortable presenting
one final model which I can say fulfills the goal of my study.
However, I would still like to present a working list of strategies
which could be potentially molded into a model or used as a basis
of one in the future.As I mentioned in the introduction, the model
constructed through this study is meant to be used when meeting any
person for the first time. I had originally planned to distribute
the model to the participants as well as make it available to the
gender non-binary community through Tumblr. Based on a large number
of participants stating that family members were least respectful
of their preferred pronouns it follows that distributing the model
to them should be a priority. One way to do this is to share it
with non-binary individuals who could then pass it onto their
family members. However, they may be less receptive to these
strategies if they come from someone whose identity they do not
respect in the first place. It may be ideal to reach family members
in another way then but I do not have any suggestions at this time
of what this other way could be. These strategies are derived from
the themes of evasion and agency. All strategies can be divided
among evasive or non-evasive lines. The theme of agency works to
inform the non-evasive strategies. I cannot say based on my data if
one type of strategy is more effective than another. All I can say
is that my participants tended to use evasive strategies when
meeting someone who did not have an androgynous or ambiguous gender
expression. On the other and, when meeting someone who was
androgynous they tended to use non-evasive strategies. Evasive
Strategies Visual cues Look at clothing/facial hair Do not base
pronouns on body shape Verbal cues Listen to how other people refer
to them Listen to how they refer to themselves Name Is their name
traditionally given to someone of a certain gender? Default to they
Wait for someone to correct you Non-evasive Strategies Ask Avoid
asking in front of others that they may not be out to When in doubt
do not ask in front of family members or coworkers/classmates
Respect agency Only they can decide what their gender identity and
pronouns are Do not attempt to correct their pronouns Avoid
invasive questions Do not pry into their personal life Do not
expect that they will educate you about gender identity Start a
conversation State your own preferred pronouns first Bring up a
topic related to gender or gender identity
Assessing TrustworthinessThe findings from the two interviews I
conducted were generally congruent with the results of my surveys.
No new codes emerged from the interviews which had not already come
from the surveys. However, the codes name to figure out PP, verbal
cues to figure out PP and telling PP without being asked were not
found within the interviews. Therefore I was not able to better
assess the trustworthiness of the findings which came from those
specific codes using the interviews. It is possible that if I had
conducted more interviews and so had more data to work with those
codes would also have been applicable. Murphy and Carricks study
unearthed similar categories and themes as me with goes to further
support some of my findings. They also found that concerns for ones
safety influence what pronouns non-binary individuals use in social
situations. When an individual feels they are not in a safe space
or that revealing their preferred pronouns may cause them harm,
they sometimes revert to using binary pronouns. In addition, they
found that avoiding awkwardness with other people was a motivating
factor in how they negotiated their pronouns which is similar to my
finding that people tend to accommodate others because they want to
protect their personal comfort or safety. In their study this also
lead to people letting others choose what pronouns to and accepting
these pronouns even when they were not the ones preferred by the
person. Finally they also found that the pronoun they was
considered by their participants to be the most appropriate pronoun
which aligns with most of my own participants views.
Reflections and ConclusionThe greatest shortcoming of the study
was that I was unsuccessful in getting the level of feedback I
wanted from the participants. Although I invited 22 people to the
WordPress site and had 12 people accept the invitation there was
only one comment posted to it. It was suggested that instead of a
WordPress site a Tumblr would have facilitated more discussion. If
I had anticipated that the majority of the participants would be
from Tumblr I would have done this instead. Unfortunately, by the
time this was apparent the entire study had been engineered to
accommodate a WordPress rather than a Tumblr. For instance, I
collected peoples emails in order to invite them to the WordPress
but a private Tumblr requires participants to log in with a
password that Id give them instead. I did create a post on the
WordPress site asking participants if they would prefer if I moved
everything onto a Tumblr but received no response. I had initially
tried to find at least one person who was gender non-binary to act
as a co-researcher with me from the research proposal to final
paper. This did not come to fruition but I believe it would have
greatly enhanced my study as another source of consistent
reflexivity. I did realize too late that the way I was running the
WordPress site was not encouraging feedback in the way I wanted.
Although I made it clear in words that I welcomed feedback in any
form and that it was a safe space to discuss anything, I did not
show it in the right way with my posts. While my intention was to
give the participants as much information as possible I realized
that this had the unintentional side effect of bogging down my site
with text which was long and boring. I had not done a good job of
making my posts exciting, easy to read, visually interesting, and
directly engaging with the participants. Once I figured this out I
began to create posts which were short, spaced out in a visually
pleasing way, and posed a question or topic of conversation
directly to the reader. It was this type of post which garnered the
first comment on the site but I believe it was too little too late
as was also the last comment. As I mentioned previously I
originally intended to use grounded theory for my data analysis but
settled on a general inductive approach instead. While I believe
that using a technique which wasnt overly formal was to the benefit
of the study, if I had more time I would have preferred to use a
method which was a little more comprehensive. Perhaps a variation
on grounded theory or using a mixed methods approach could give
further insight. For instance, the interviews may have been better
suited to narrative analysis while the surveys could be analyzed
with a simplified version of grounded theory. Although I was happy
with the results of my study since participants answered questions
in a way which I anticipated, indicating that they were clearly
worded, the interviews could have been stronger. The biggest
drawback to the interviews was that they were both conducted over
text chat. Since I was not able to hear their voice or see their
body all non-verbal communication such as body language and tone
were lost. Another drawback was since all data collection was done
completely anonymously I was unable to collect any demographic
information such as age, nationality, or ethnicity. I have no way
of knowing if my data represents a diverse sample of gender
non-binary individuals. The only piece of information I have is
that at least once participant was from the United Kingdom which
they explicitly told me in an interview. This lack of demographic
information means that I do not know if there were cultural factors
which my participants shared that may have influenced their
responses. The social contexts described in this study were all
face-to-face meetings between people but some participants did
mention that they negotiated pronouns differently in online spaces.
As part of their literature review Murphy and Carrick discussed how
some genderqueer individuals seek online as a safe space where they
can comfortably express their gender identity. Therefore one path
to take this research in would be to focus on pronoun use online or
to compare negotiating preferred pronouns online and in person. If
I were to turn this pilot study into a full project I think there
are two different directions I could go in. I could try to work off
of the trove of data I have or I could try again to develop the
participatory aspect. If I were to try again to make this study
highly participatory I would seek new participants through Tumblr
and instead of trying to engage them though a WordPress site, I
would use private Tumblr instead. Since I would know that new
participants are already active on Tumblr and used to how it
functions, I believe they would be likely to use a Tumblr site.
With a higher degree of participant reflexivity I would focus on
refining and shaping the strategies for respecting preferred
pronouns into a model which I could be proud to distribute. If
instead I wanted to work with the surveys I already have, I would
focus on answering my research question more completely rather than
creating the model. I would use grounded theory instead of a
general inductive approach and code line by line. I would only stop
analyzing surveys once no new codes or categories emerged. In
conclusion, I am happy with what I was able to do in the time I had
and believe that my pilot study overall was successful. This study
was designed to primarily benefit the gender non-binary community
by raising awareness of it and giving it voice, but I believe that
the research done can also help those who know or meet gender
non-binary individuals. This study offers insight into what its
like to navigate the world when one is gender non-binary and the
strategies for respecting preferred pronouns are meant to be used
by anyone no matter their gender identity. Although I was not able
to fulfil the ultimate goal of the study I was able to give an
answer to my research question. I was also able to out many new
tools and techniques which I had never used before. The mistakes
and missteps I made also contributed to the learning process and
the next study I do will benefit from them. I hope that I was able
to raise some awareness of the gender non-binary community even if
it was only among my classmates. Im optimistic that there will be
more research done in the future on this topic but I predict that
non-binary people will continue to be invisible until gender
neutral pronouns become widely accepted. Though this project is
done for now, I will continue to keep the positive change going by
doing my best to maintain my own and others awareness of gender
neutral pronouns and to do my best to respect others preferred
pronouns no matter what they may be.
Works CitedBornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and
the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer
Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press, 1996.
My Identity is Fluid as Fuck: Transgender Zine Writers Constructing
Themselves. Jackie Regales. Queer Youth Culture. Ed. Susan Driver.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. Understanding
Gender. Gender Spectrum. 2013. .1