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