The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

should the Guardian ask for trans status on its dating forms?

In theory it should be straightforward for The Guardian to make sure this is the case and to announce this. Let's see if they feel able to do this.

There is tweet from Anna online implying that she is a lesbian unless she hasn’t had some for a while... sounds like she’s not exclusive.
Personally I take issue with the idea that refusal is transphobic. Some women just don’t like male bodies. Suggesting that they should/slating them for this reason is just rapey af.

Jen admitted they didn't mention they were trans. That doesn't mean that The Guardian form didn't ask.

Only, the point is that the Guardian did not record Jen's trans status. So, no matter what Anna may or may not have put on the imaginary preference form, it would have been impossible to respect Anna's hypothetical choice to not date a transwoman.

So, the question becomes: should the Guardian ask for trans status on its dating forms? Many here would say: yes.

Note too: like female hcps. There is no ability to tolerate choice and variation, that SOME people are homosexual while others are homogenderal and that's ok. Choice is allowed.

Some people need female hcps, some are fine with female gender, some are fine with anyone of any identity/sex, and that's ok. Choice is allowed.

It's always about dominate, stamp out, shame, erase. Those options for women must go, regardless of women's needs because they get in the way of 'I want'.

Fuck That.

Do we know for certain that Anna describes herself as a lesbian? If she does, do we know for certain that she applies it to herself in the official/correct way, or the wokey-cokey “anyone who says they’re a woman”/gender rather than sex attracted way? Because unless we know the answers to those questions, then we are making assumptions that the Guardian did anything wrong. If Anna indicated within her application in any way that she was open to dating transpeople, then there was no reason to “warn” her about anything beforehand because Jen would have been within the pool of people she was happy to date. TG may not be or feel able to disclose the exact details of what Anna actually put on her form to describe her sexual orientation without her express consent to that disclosure.

I don’t know whether that is the case or not. If there was any uncertainty about Anna’s open-ness to dating a transwoman before the fact, then TG absolutely did cross a line. But we don’t know one way or the other whether they actually did anything wrong here, and in the absence of that information we can’t assume they would try to set up any or all lesbians applying to Blind Date with TW.

I absolutely accept that nothing happens in a vacuum and there undoubtedly are some - maybe many - young women feeling pressurised to be “more inclusive” in their dating practices or risk severe disapprobation, and that is an appalling state of affairs. But again, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that Anna is one of them, we are making assumptions about her feelings and her motives and denying her agency. She could have chosen to say nothing or be fairly circumspect in her response, but she very much hasn’t been. That may be for fear of the reaction if she doesn’t show herself to be all aboard the Woke Express, or she may genuinely be relaxed about the situation including the date. Given that she has spoken up for herself, it’s not really for us to dismiss that just because we think we know better, to try to ascribe motives or influences that may be entirely incorrect, or to try to shift the argument to “but it’s not about Anna, it’s The Guardian crossing a line and what that means for lesbians” when we can’t be certain they have crossed a line.

And because I'm lesbian and livid at that stupid tweet:

There's no such thing as 'cis', women are not a subcategory of the female half of the human race, and while you're entitled to your opinion, no, I don't accept your personal view of reality as truth.

Please don't call me 'cis' if you expect me to respect your personal language choices: this is either reciprocal or there's no dice.

Gender does not define homosexuality, sex does. I get this is really upsetting and inconvenient to you and limits how real you can make your choice of personal identity, but other people have rights too, and you don't get to remove human rights from people and forcibly redefine them, their lives and their bodily autonomy for your own self interested benefit.

If you're talking about my right to bodily autonomy then you've forced me to the discourtesy and I have the same right to speak clearly that you do: the facts are that transwomen are male. They will always be male. Their gender identity and their biological sex are not the same. I appreciate this is an upsetting reality, but in some situations, such as homosexuality, sex matters to some people. Having to deal with other people having boundaries you don't like is a basic adult skill.

Yes, genitals matter in sex to many people. No you don't have a female penis, there is no such thing. How you name it and view it is your choice, but you are intentionally redefining language in an attempt to persuade and coerce unwilling women into sex.

There's quite a detailed discussion on the LGB Alliance Facebook page too.

If you have to "allow" someone into your sex life then you aren't actually attracted to them.

An actual enlarged clitoris never got anybody pregnant.

From that Twitter thread:

The concept of homosexuals has changed......Now that trans people are being normalized, it’s GENDER that decides homosexuality. Sex is irrelevant. This is why more and more cis women are coming to the idea that TRANS WOMEN ARE ACTUAL WOMEN. and therefore allowing them into their lesbianism. We are women. Genitals do not matter. I have a female penis. There is nothing wrong with that. Think of it as an enlarged clitoris.

I really don't know where to start with all the things wrong with this, but there it is. That's the attitudes, beliefs and the total lack of respect for women as equally human that underpins this and the Guardian's actions.

Homosexuality has been redefined for you, female people, you've been told. Lesbians have been redefined by men, and coercion and pressure is in progress to work on them until they validate gender identities with their bodies like good girls. Because it's fucking inconvenient and upsetting for people born male to have to deal with 'no' from someone who thinks they have the right to bodily autonomy.

Rather like the demand that women who want female hcps validate gender identities with their bodies by having intimate medical care from anyone who identifies as a woman.

Where's LGB Alliance on this?

Here: twitter.com/AllianceLGB/status/1199233580037267456?s=20

This is about the Guardian’s conduct.

It only became a story when one datee publicly shamed the other for opting out of a second date and the Guardian confirmed they hadn’t disclosed sex/gender beforehand.

If the G had said “of course both parties knew - what kind of match-maker wouldn’t tell them!” - End of story. They did not.

They would have disclosed this to a straight man. That’s the issue - their conduct.

If I went on a Guardian blind date with a dude (I’m straight) who then tweeted his displeasure about me - I’d expect comments online.

If I then posted online supporting and affirming him (“lovely evening,” “happy with the match”) and calling those criticising him “abhorrent?”

I know it’s hard to imagine but think about it, people - read:

1. Jen’s tweets shaming a young woman;
2. the response, which praises Jen.

You would really want the whole discussion to end.

Remember she cannot respond to those unpleasant earlier TRA comments, they would rain abuse on her.

But she can respond to women so out of respect for her, I’ll leave it there.

Datun I think it's particularly unfair that Anna now has to face speculation about her sexuality from strangers online. Let's not do this to other women.

Going on a blind date organised by the guardian means your sexuality will, of course, be discussed. It's the whole point. Will they, won't they?

But Anna and her preferences, whether she was set up, whether she's deliberately part of a bigger set up, etc, isn't really relevant. It's not about individuals.

Lesbianism doesn't involve men.

I'd forgotten about that incident where the Guardian attempted to smug Americans out of voting for Bush. Didn't really think that one through, did they?

Cologne was my breaking point with them but really, they've been a bit too convinced of their own moral authority for a long time.

Hopefully the publicity means that if people are applying, they'll be very clear on their preferences regardless of the boxes on The Guardian form.

i want to bang my head against a wall about all this because none of this happens in a vacuum

however should respect Anna's wishes re situation

Seems Anna isn't happy with Lara for ways she said, she is pissed of at people "attacking a person I spent a lovely evening with" and using it to further "an ideology I find abhorrent" or something like that

For some reason I'm reminded of The Guardian's antics in 2004:

www.libdemvoice.org/timely-reminder-when-the-guardians-attempt-to-influence-us-politics-backfired-spectacularly-50185.html

I wouldn't be surprised if there is imminently a wokest of the woke date wheeled out, where birds sing and flowers bloom and all is right with the trans agenda because they literally are men/women dating other men/women, just like they said.

The G need to do something to atone for this messup with the TRA crew.

Where's LGB Alliance on this? I'm tempted to email the guardian, why don't they think people are entitled to a sexuality?!

Reality, I don't think you understand what I mean. In order to match people correctly, i.e. according to their stated sexual orientation and dating preference, the Guardian would have to record whether someone was trans or not, wouldn't they? This they did not do. The Guardian would know that for some lesbians it would not be OK to date a transwoman, while for others it would. People feel strongly about this on both sides, so the most respectful thing to do would be to make enquiries and not assumptions. I think that what many posters here are objecting to is that the Guardian made the assumption that all lesbians are fine with this.

I agree that some of the comments on twitter are overblown but I also think that the whole episode tells us something important about the current dating scene and what people are and aren't allowed to do. Dating always follows conventions, and these change over time. That's why the Guardian blind date has the strange question about table manners. It's a social ritual. That the ritual now includes the idea that biological sex is not important when it comes to something that might result in sexual activity is quite a departure, in my opinion. Personally, I find the whole idea dates cringeworthy and reminiscent of the 1950s anyway ... no idea why a 'progressive' newspaper even has this section ...

And the focus of my discomfort is the way Jen has behaved afterwards, which is probably because I'm not a lesbian and haven't been subjected to the specific forms of male bullshit associated with that but I have been subjected to the petulant rage and desire for retribution that can happen when a woman rejects a male.

Which was sort of my point above - there is no collective GC position here, everyone is coming at things from their own angle based on their own experiences, which means that we won't always agree. It doesn't seem productive to me to try and impose a "no, this is the angle we're officially taking" policy on GC women - we're not a political party, there's no whip, it's impractical as well as imo undesirable.

I have no doubt that had The Guardian discussed with Anna before the date that her blind date was a transwoman, this would have formed the core of the response to people saying "WTF?"

But if you read what's been said, instead there's been a lot of beating around the bush after the event to give us this impression, but The Guardian has been unable to state this explicitly.

I think the Guardian presenting an opposite-sex date as a same-sex date is the problem here.

And of course, it now introduces an ongoing situation where only bi or pan women - even if they identify as lesbians - will risk applying to Soul Mates, because nobody who is exclusively same-sex-attracted will want to risk being placed in that position. And so now only bi or pan women will appear in that column, some of them going on opposite-sex dates with transwomen. And everybody is happy, and there's not a problem, right?

And thus the erasure of lesbians continues apace.