The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

nor can we automatically assume that they would match anyone who simply described themselves as "lesbian" without any trans-related qualifier in the future with a TW. If they did, they would be absolutely wrong and lacking in duty of care - but we can't say with any certainty that was or would be the case.

I think as long as they were clear about their policy, it would be fine. Dumb, but fine. People who realise it is dumb can avoid asking them to set up a date.

It depends what you mean by "dating". If it includes sex (See, I'm of an older generation: this is not a given for me. I often dated without sex.), and you enjoyed that sex, and continued to be attracted to transmen, then you would not be straight, you'd be bisexual.

I think what sometimes happens though, is people are sometimes attracted to certain individuals who are not normally in the group that they are interested in. And it's enough for people to say to themselves, well, sure, I would be ok with that more generally. They are thinking that if they are attracted to one transwoman, who maybe passes rather well, not being attracted to others is just like not being attracted to any individual. Especially if the attraction is more abstract, someone on tv say.

It might be more the case with trans men, too, because many of them if they have transitioned for long can really pass totally, at least with clothes on. If you are getting al the visual signals that say "man" then the sexual attraction part of your brain may not care about much else.

I agree with a PP, I don’t want particularly want to be mentioning the blind daters by name, but this is an important precedent by The Guardian, and I don’t know how else to discuss it clearly?
A previous date which was between two lesbians went viral as it was so lovely. If you put yourself in a national newspaper as a blind dater then you must expect to be discussed? Although not of course subject to abuse.

OnlyTheTitOfTheIceberg, If Anna had described herself to The Guardian in terms which would have indicated that a TW would be acceptable to her, then I am sure The Guardian would have worded their reply to the concerned reader differently. They could have done this without breaking privacy.

I think their reply smacks of being on the back foot and as they say: it's complex and “something we will be giving further consideration”.

They were negligent and must be feeling very lucky that Anna was OK with the situation.

Reading that, it seems incomprehensible that they would not have become aware that Jen was a transwoman before the date. The Guardian then needed to ask any prospective blind date whether they were open to meeting a transwoman.

Agreed..unless, in Anna's own application, she had identified herself as "trans-inclusive lesbian" or "pansexual" or any other descriptor which would have made it clear to whoever was doing the matching that a date with a transwoman would be fine with her. And that's the bit we simply don't know (and are never likely to in light of how Anna has reacted on social media), so we cannot assume that The Guardian was out of line in not flagging up to Anna beforehand that the date would be with a TW, nor can we automatically assume that they would match anyone who simply described themselves as "lesbian" without any trans-related qualifier in the future with a TW. If they did, they would be absolutely wrong and lacking in duty of care - but we can't say with any certainty that was or would be the case.

I know that "lesbian" means "woman attracted to other women" and I absolutely agree that definitions which have served us perfectly well for decades - centuries in the case of the word "woman" - shouldn't be arbitrarily changed, but whether or not TG did anything wrong hinges on how Anna described herself to them, and we don't know that it wasn't "lesbian with some qualifier to indicate that transwomen were okay by her".

Key bits from that article. “Precision of a heart surgeon...”

There's an interesting chicken or egg question there. Is everyone who applies to the Guardian's Blind Date thingy insufferable, or do they write whatever the participants submit to them up in a way that makes them come across like that. Because Reality is correct, any time I've seen one I've ended up thinking I wouldn't want to spend a 2 minute lift ride with any of the people involved.

In this Guardian piece about the Blind Date column, it’s clear that when they take the photos in advance, the matchmaker spends time having a chat with the prospective dater, finding out more about what they are looking for. Reading that, it seems incomprehensible that they would not have become aware that Jen was a transwoman
before the date. The Guardian then needed to ask any prospective blind date whether they were open to meeting a transwoman.
They also clearly need better procedures for dealing with the whole issue.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/31/10-years-of-blind-date-weddings-babies-lost-knickers

LordProf nobody knows what the Guardian procedure is or was either. We have one email saying that they didn’t know Jen was trans but why are we taking that as conclusive proof that they trick people? Who knows?
As for them pushing the TWAW line, yes, they do. They have done for a while and if you were GC, you probably wouldn’t pick them to facilitate a date. Even if the person was the sex you had requested, from what I have seen of their date write-ups, they would be highly likely to be an insufferable prat.

Yes - I think we need to stop talking about Anna altogether.

It’s not about her - it’s about the guardian merrily going ahead a with the whole TWAW mentality as if it was gospel.

Jeez, people are STILL talking about the ‘pressure’ Anna is under and the ‘blink twice’ comment is so stupid. She has made her feelings plain. You need to stop it, seriously. Stick up for children and anyone who has actually complained. But victimising grown adults for no reason other than that they are female (Anna has NEVER said she is a lesbian and exclusively attracted to females). She very clearly doesn’t want or need help and this is not the scandal it’s being made out to be.

I’m vegan. I can be inclusive of meat if I want.

I wouldn’t be vegan then, though.

FFS

The young woman never specified her sexuality. Someone simply assumed she was a lesbian (not bi, cis, pan, q*eer) and everyone ran with that. She has since said she was happy with the match and disagrees with GCF - so let’s respect that.

The age old discussion about words and meanings can always continue on a new thread, completely separate to the individuals involved here.

Words which require the exclusion of men as a defining characteristic are being rewritten as oxymorons. This is newspeak language.

ANd when words lose their meanings so that their defining characteristics become vague and open to subjective interpretation, communication disintegrates. There can be no more dialogue. No more rational communication. Society falls apart.
Yes, it's that serious, taken to its logical conclusion.
We cannot arbitrarily change the definition of a word to suit our politics.

Tarkus, I did nothing of the sort. I did not tell her what to think or do. I said that she will now be put under pressure by transactivists, and judged

Did you actually read my post? You (general you) are so determined that Anna is a victim here. Anna did not strike me as neutral in her replies. I'm not in the least bit surprised she is now telling the "gender critical" brigade to get lost.

She seemed very happy in her replies. She also mentioned they chatted about "the queer community" and Pride. Does that sound like the sort of subjects which "gender critical" women would have a nice over dinner chat about? Certainly doesn't to me.

Your (general your) "support and outrage" was indeed misplaced and unwanted (which you, general you, could have worked out from her replies) so you are now turning to another tack for your unwanted sympathy- that she will be under pressure because of it.

I'm straight, if I dated a trans man I'd still be straight.

It depends what you mean by "dating". If it includes sex (See, I'm of an older generation: this is not a given for me. I often dated without sex.), and you enjoyed that sex, and continued to be attracted to transmen, then you would not be straight, you'd be bisexual.

A woman who actively wants a sexual relationship with a male person is not a lesbian

Words which require the exclusion of men as a defining characteristic are being rewritten as oxymorons. This is newspeak language.

I've skim read the thread - is there anything to conclusively say that Anna wasn't told about Jen being trans?

If she wasn't told then I agree that's bad.

I disagree with the assertion that a lesbian can't be attracted to a trans woman and that if she is she can't be a lesbian. I'm straight, if I dated a trans man I'd still be straight..

A lesbian would never be sexually interested in a male. However feminine, TW or not.

The Guardian should not send lesbians on dates with adult human males. Is the bottom line.

Really can't you (general you) take a break from telling Anna what she should think and do? She has made it clear on Twitter what her position is.

Tarkus, I did nothing of the sort. I did not tell her what to think or do. I said that she will now be put under pressure by transactivists, and judged.

Because:

Anna received, here and on Twitter and FB, overwhelming support from GC women and outrage at the Guardian for putting her in this situation. Anna remained neutral in the interview and afterwards but finally, according to the Guardian, (paraphrased), she says she does not want our support, she is OK with everything.

So OK, we take a step back. Our support and outrage was misplaced.

Yet the possibility remains that she will now be encouraged to actually, of her own free will, date a TW in order to underscore the fact that she is woke, believes that TWAW, and thoroughly repudiates our support and outrage.

Isn't that the final, solid, validating proof that TWAW?

But anyway, I'd prefer in future not to refer specifically to her.

It's really about the general issue, of a lesbian being put in this position at all, and how she is to deal with it.
People were right to call out the Guardian.

Ok they had a good time, but worth remembering as a pp said they would never have set up a hetero male with a TW or put two lesbian TW together. So actually doesn’t that make the Guardian transphobic?

I don't know that I think that's true. If they were in the business of that sort of decision I think they might.

But from what other posters have said, they really don't give much oversight to the dates. They get a form filled out and the information they have is just what each person chooses to give. And the dates all know this, it's the same procedure for all of them. Anyone could withhold any information they wanted to, or even lie.

I'm betting that the next step is that Anna will be put under pressure to actively prove she is not GC. Guess how

If "GC" means "gender critical" and agreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy on here it was patently obvious from the article that Anna isn't "gender critical".

You can tell from this reply by Anna.

What did you talk about?
Her sister’s upcoming wedding, shitposting, the queer community, shared houses, worst drinking stories,board games, tattoos, Pride.

Really can't you (general you) take a break from telling Anna what she should think and do? She has made it clear on Twitter what her position is.