The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

Just to add that only the photographer came round to do the pics for the date that I went on, but we were located outside London so I don't know if there's an editor present at the photo shoot for any London-based dates. They were done fairly swiftly, mine was at my house and my date had his done at the office.

nauticant "Their "we weren't explicitly told" is very different from "we didn't know"."

Plausible deniability is not a good defence.

Wiki definition (my bold): "Plausible deniability is the ability of people (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

I think you're probably right, Floisme. They didn't realise that Jen was trans until Jen turned up at the office for the photoshoot. Judging from the 10th anniversary article, two people attend each photoshoot - the Blind Date editor and the photographer. Both probably felt too uncomfortable to say anything. But of course they could still have warned Anna ahead of the date itself - the question is, did they?

Hello - just in case it's useful to know how the Guardian Blind Date thing works (I've been on one!). You send in your info and who you would like to date, then when they find someone they think would be a match, they contact you and ask if you'd like to go on the date. Obvs you don't see a pic of your potential date and the Guardian just go on what you have told them, i.e. I told them I was a woman looking to date a man. All other info I provided was very basic - age, location, a few interests. Prior to the date, they send a photographer around to your house or place of work to take the (individual) photo that will be used in the paper after the date. You go on the date, they email you a questionnaire, you fill it in and email it back, then a few weeks later you're in the magazine. They edit your answers down too. Hope that's helpful.

I always opt for the cockup rather than the conspiracy theory of history so I am going to take a punt that Weekend Guardian didn't set out to deceive and then gaslight this poor young woman, and that everyone looked and thought 'WTF' but that nobody wanted to be the one who said it out loud.

Which (if correct) is not to excuse them in the slightest - it's exactly how very bad stuff happens. But I think The Guardian leadership also share responsibility because it's their spinelessness that has allowed it to happen.

It's like a cruel parody of Jeremy Beadles 'Game for a Laugh'. I cant believe how appallingly cruel this is.

Can someone point me to Anna's or Jen's tweets about this? I can't find them - though I've seen the threads from Bindel and others.

they sued but settled out of court

I guess they all had something to gain from the programme being broadcast

Didn’t the men who went on “There’s something About Miriam” end up suing the producers and winning?

That was the show in which a group of straight men competed to date a hot woman, who unbeknownst to them was trans.

By the way, the Guardian meets each blind datee in person before the date, and photographs them.

The Guardian knew exactly what they were doing. They knew. They cannot deny it.

Indeed. That's why the Guardian's response of "Jen didn't disclose that she is trans during the selection process and this isn't a question that we ask though some people choose to share" is so mendacious. Their "we weren't explicitly told" is very different from "we didn't know".

Bernard well said.

The other side to this is that Jen has made an absolute stuff up of the situation and comes off badly too, because of this whole TWAW ideology. Jen does not seem to view failing to declare transwoman status as in any way problematic, and nor, apparently, does the Guardian.

We aren't doing anyone any favours by permitting this kind of selfish entitlement and 'acceptance without exception' nonsense. Particularly when so many people disagree and argue otherwise. It's like failing to setting boundaries with your kids - they go out into the world and find that not everyone is going to put up with it.

The Guardian has done everyone in this situation a huge disservice, and I hope they realise that.

Seems to me that being woke means denying reality then

100%

Woke culture is about seeing what people will swallow

If you can persuade them to pretend they can’t determine someone’s sex, you can persuade them to do pretty much whatever you like

Seems to me that being woke means denying reality then

Tinder allows all sorts of genders but

" Seidman said Tinder's policy that does not allow users to filter out trans people as possible matches has had "some very disappointing, unforeseen consequences" because users instead would file complaints or unwarranted reports about them"

www.enca.com/life/trans-people-find-fault-tinders-efforts-inclusion

unforeseen?

how could you not see that coming

Of course the G are so woke that they couldn’t tell and didn’t realise 🙄

I noted that the Guardian did a piece on a queer dating service last week

www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/08/lex-dating-app-instagram-personals-queer

Sounds all well and good but after I read it I thought that they never report on lesbians who are fed up with transwomen on dating sites, its spinning an idealist vision of the LGBTQ+ all living happily together when often this is not the case.

I wonder if SoulMates treats Transwomen as Women?

Hope you're OK wherever you are, Anna

If the Guardian did genuinely want to show support for trans people and sympathetically feature trans daters in the column, then really the only way that they could that without evoking horrible misogynist overtones of compulsory heterosexuality and the cotton ceiling would be to have a trans woman go on a date with a heterosexual man, with the full knowledge and agreement of both parties.

They didn't, because that isn't the agenda they're pursuing at all.

Even though Anna played by "the rules" and went through with the date, when she invoked what is supposed to be the agreed "I'm just not attracted to you as an individual" graceful get out clause that supposedly excuses a lesbian from being transphobic, that still wasn't enough.

Eight hours to reply to a text message says to me "I am trying to find a way out of replying to this message that won't end up on Bye Felipe" (or wherever women post rejection freak outs these days).

There was literally no way out of this for Anna, unless she agreed not just to a second date, but to whatever Jen fancied by way of a relationship. Anything less and at some point it's "transphobia", and the fucking Guardian knowingly put Anna in that position to prove its political point that lesbians can have penises.

Anna has handled the whole thing incredibly well - she has not put a foot wrong

Funny too how they haven’t matched a ‘male lesbian’ with another ‘male lesbian’ - wonder what Jen’s response would have been if she had been fixed up with another male lesbian rather than Anna...
(Sorry if my terms are wrong - head is spinning, I’m tired and this seems the fastest description. You know what I mean in the context of the thread!)

After all if she expects Anna to be ok with her, it surely follows that she too would be happy to receive the same surprise...

Disgraceful I hope the paper are held to account

By the way, the Guardian meets each blind datee in person before the date, and photographs them.

The Guardian knew exactly what they were doing. They knew. They cannot deny it.

They are relying on female socialisation, on the incredible pressure on young women “not to make a fuss,” to get away with this.

They would never do this to a man.

Good point, DuMonde.

Anna, whether you signed up to this in full knowledge, or were misled, you have been hung out to dry here

Having been shat on by the Guardian a few years back (naively input into their readers views column not realising that (a) they would use my full name without checking and (b) they would selectively quote, I got ministered in th BTL comments), I do have some idea of what you are being put through.

Get friends to support you and cling onto "today's news, tomorrow's chip wrapping."

Someone posted that appalling comment earlier on this thread. But it’s good that the majority are very critical of The Guardian, if I understood your comment correctly. This says so much about The Guardian. None of it good