Various thoughts:
-
Around 20 people weren't properly covered by the gender categories, obviously we're trying to be as inclusive as possible and a different approach will be tried next time
-
There were about 600 respondents, which gives us a accurate sampling of the active userbase. If you multiply any number by 3, you'll get a fairly accurate representation of the full userbase each week. This means there are around 800-900 people who don't identify fully as cis each week on this site.
-
Nearly 300 trans/gender diverse/questioning people unanimously agree that hexbear is an inclusive space
-
There was so much data on gender that I was really struggling to find a way to convey the data that wasnt a pie chart, graph, or an incomprehensible kalaeidoscope. If you have an idea on how to beautify the data, you can download the raw data here: https://pad.artemislena.eu/file/#/2/file/xzy4pck8on+oZp9yGRUIezR+/ - I further anonymized this data by removing time of response and any specific comments, I don't think it would be easy for anyone to figure out who is who.
-
There were a couple of text responses that really needed further elaboration, I noted hexbear's rules next to these comments
-
I'll probably be doing a demographics survey sometime in the future, including basic fairly anonymous stuff like "what region were you born in" "where do the languages you speak originate" "would you describe yourself as a POC" "what age range are you in".
-
The percentage of people answering they were cisgender increased by 8% than the previous survey. This could be for a myriad of reasons, such as cis people being afraid trans people will hunt them down in the public thread and assassinate them. Anonymity may have made them feel safer to respond. Regardless, way more people responded this time, which signifies that people felt safer responding to the cryptpad or it was easier to do. The leading question was a bit more inclusive than last time, but I think I'll include both questions (are you transgender / gender diverse and are you cisgender) to see how people respond.
-
We have a lot of people that aren't binary trans on this site.
-
Some of the questions were pretty funky and we got a lot of fuzzy responses on them as a result. In particular "After you realized you were trans/gender diverse, how long did it take for you to begin to act on it?" and "At what age did you begin transition?" caused a lot of friction, I think I will ask more vague questions in the future that lead to a path of more specific questions to capture better data, and to save people time. Questions like "Do you feel your gender transition had a defined starting point?" and some further ones.
-
Around 20 people each week on this site are cis she/hers, which is very low and roughly the same as last time. I feel like if hexbear ever starts hosting other federated stuff (like a federated tiktok or something) and can hook into it natively with lemmy, we'd see a better ratio.
-
I tried to be very sure any data with >2 people on it was clearly legible, I think some people might find it fun that there are others with their same fairly specific classifications per this survey lurking around on the site.
-
Overall I feel like the survey was a success despite some bumps.
-
You can find the other surveys/links here: https://hexbear.net/post/3016455
-
I made these graphs on company time
I haven't read anything that would suggest that was the case.
The initial underfunding (which led to black market mechanisms for access to healthcare) is consistent with the relative drop in revenue for the government, from 30 percent to 10 percent of GDP in the 15 years from the early 80s to the mid 90s.
Then, if I was to put myself in the mind of a CPC planner in the mid to late 1980s, you're seeing economic growth significantly accelerate from the introduction of market reforms - so if you don't think you can fund the system properly (you discount Cuba in this scenario), it would not be a wild idea at first glance to legitimise and give structure to existing practices in the healthcare sector - do some relatively minor changes and kick the can of massive root and branch reform down the road.
And we have seen the CPC continue to make comparatively minor changes to the broader welfare system (generally in a direction beneficial for Chinese citizens) since then, without the sort of massive reform to Hukou and welfare that would otherwise be required.
If I were to put on my China watcher Orientalist telepathy helmet I would guess that XJP and similar thinkers in the CPC would want to continue to put off that level of reform at least until China has met the stated goals for the initial stage of a prosperous country (30k GDP per capita), and have made all the national improvements to things like standardised credit history, trade and rule of law across the country before tackling welfare.
That'd be the hope, anyways. Seeing the course they continue to take (controlled demolition of the housing bubble and turning the leftover into public housing, even further poverty alleviation efforts on a ground level, cracking down even further on corruption, preventing capitalizations like Jack Ma's attempt to introduce cheap consumer credit, etc) I think they're on the right track, though maintaining the integrity of any proletarian party (which I do think the CPC is- imperfect as all things are, but proletarian) is a never-ending duty.
I do think it's important to note however, that (while this is not to say this is or isn't the case) different priorities in the path of developing socialism can be and are arguably valid. From the looks of it we both seem to have the same idea- China has probably focused on its national development, determining that certain benefits will take lower priority and less resources, and that (in regards to the drop in revenue) state revenues would take a secondary priority also to development/promotion of industries and enterprise (both private and public/state-owned). Personally I think this has worked out amazingly for them, and I feel most of the world (debatably, even AES states- though the majority of AES states also did not have the potential or circumstances of China as it is one of the world's largest and most populous nations) would agree as well, IMO particularly those whose direct experiences or whose parents/grandparents of the past 2-3~ generations came from colonized, formerly dirt-poor (like China was) undeveloped nations.
If China had only grown half as much as it did- if it only developed as much as, say, India, or even had remained in a middle ground, or reached the development levels of the late Soviet Union- I think that we would be living in a much more difficult world, for the anti-imperialist struggle and for China's defending itself from military encirclement and the weaponization of trade and technologies, for instance.