In 2011, I became interested in what “community” meant to the non-cisgender population. I set up a survey to help explicate how the non-cis population thinks about and experiences community. The survey ran between August 2011 and November 2019. Unfortunately, the platform I was using stopped working, and for a few years, I thought all this important data was lost. However, I was recently doing some housecleaning on my server and discovered that the SQL data was still there. I retrieved it and extracted the data from the database, resulting in the report below.

The report summarizes 1,165 survey records collected between August 2011 and November 2019, with a substantial analyzable subset for the core community items (n = 994). The report is unique in that it represents a comparatively large descriptive sample for trans community research from the early to mid-2010s, which was a period when fewer large online datasets were publicly visible. In this way, it provides a historical snapshot of how respondents articulated “community” during that era and is useful for retrospective comparisons or how it things looked then narratives.

Among those who answered, roughly the mid‑80% range rated community as at least somewhat important, but a meaningful minority expressed disengagement. Importantly, this survey was conducted during the so-called “trans wars” associated with the “True Transsexual” and “Harry Benjamin syndrome” separatist movements. Respondents most strongly endorsed optimism, anticipated belonging, and interpersonal care as being associated with community. Specifically, community was viewed as a lifeline, though it was not necessarily experienced as empowering or structurally effective. For example:

The top-endorsed items include:

• Expect to be part of this community for a long time (Q23; mean 2.91, 64.9% Mostly/Completely)
• Hopeful about the future of this community (Q25; mean 2.87, 64.4% Mostly/Completely)
• Members care about each other (Q26; mean 2.72, 59.6% Mostly/Completely)
• Being a member makes me feel good (Q5; mean 2.71, 59.5% Mostly/Completely)

The lowest-scoring items include:

• I have influence over what this community is like (Q17; mean 1.72, 13.7% Mostly/Completely)
• Most community members know me (Q10; mean 2.00, 27.4% Mostly/Completely)
• Community has recognizable symbols/expressions of membership (Q11; mean 2.10, 28.4% Mostly/Completely)
• I am with other members a lot and enjoy being with them (Q21; mean 2.12, 30.1% Mostly/Completely)
• Community has been successful in getting members’ needs met (Q4; mean 2.14, 25.4% Mostly/Completely) I think the takeaway is that people had a strong emotional attachment but also felt low agency or recognition as part of the community. For example, On Q17 (“I have influence over what this community is like”), the most common response was Not at All (45.1%), followed by Somewhat (41.2%).  Additionally, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that non-cis people felt that collective impact was imaginable, but individual agency inside the community felt limited.

It’s worth noting that this survey took place at the beginning of the social media explosion, which correlated with a rise in alienation and anxiety for some populations. Data collection was “most active” between 2011 and 2013, with lower volume after 2014, and the highest monthly submission count in February 2013 (n = 174).

People were asked to share their location, which could be parsed to a U.S. state for 912 of 1,165 records (78.3%), and the largest counts were associated with Texas (n = 120), California (n = 105), and New York (n = 87). ZIP codes were parsable for 1,032 respondents with 19.1% representing the (US) West, 16.7% ; South Central, 16.7%; and, NY/PA/DE, 13.0%.

I think that if a researcher or journalist were to use this report, it would be to contextualize that moment of time as being:

• Non-cis people were hopeful but not empowered: There was a strong endorsement of long-term belonging and hopefulness, alongside very low endorsement of personal influence over community direction.
• Non-cis people viewed “community” as emotional infrastructure: Community members endorsed mutual care and feeling good about community membership more than they endorsed visible symbols, frequent in-person connection, or successful needs-fulfillment at the community level.
• Non-cis people had an identity language that was plural: Survey takers elected multi-select identity patterns and, not infrequently, chose “Other” even when they selected multiple standardized categories. In this sense, standardized categories failed to capture lived identity, a factor that is particularly salient for discussions of survey methodology and representation.