Quote isn’t working a.t.m., but @xQHDQ I disagree.
Some of us fall pretty close to average on a number of dimensions that might describe dressage AAs, and rightly identify ourselves as “typical”.
Some of us are well aware that we are atypical, and don’t need a “we are all right” pat on the head.
Some of us think we are typical and everyone is just like us and are, quite frankly, wrong. Assuming everyone shares one’s own values, perspectives, socioeconomic advantages, and privileges can be dangerous to inclusion and fairness, and dressage isn’t exactly so inclusive that we can afford to be careless about these kinds of assumptions. Warm fuzzy affirmations aren’t worth it IMO.
That there is some diversity in the incomes, horse ownership, training and showing plans, etc. that make up the dressage rider population isn’t inherently problematic, and we don’t all need to go around thinking, “I am the very model of a modern adult amateur”. If people feel like the “typical AA” is underserved or underrecognized in the sport, then figuring out how dressage riders vary and finding the trends within that range makes sense. As far as I can tell, nobody actually knows what is typical of AAs in dressage, because nobody has bothered to find out. That doesn’t make every individual’s unique experience representative, and it doesn’t mean that everyone should be or should want to be a “typical AA”.
The question of “what is the typical AA” is really only important if you’re also asking “is the typical AA underrepresented or underserved” or “is the typical AA losing interest in membership organizations”. And the latter sound like issues for GMOs to tackle as they make decisions about programming and evaluate their own membership figures. Whether the “typical AA” question is something any GMO will investigate is a whole 'nother matter, with a whole 'nother complicated debate about representation and inclusion and institutional goals and values to go along with it.
