The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

Looking for the positives in this, The Guardian has provided proof that among the woke and trans communities there is a belief that lesbians don't have a sexual orientation but rather have a genderal orientation, that it's perfectly OK to mislead lesbians to get them to enter into relationships with transwomen, and that a lesbian saying no to a transwoman is a problem that needs to be solved by the lesbian being made to comply.

Much of this was supposed to be anti-trans propaganda but The Guardian have just made sure that lots of people have got the message.

This is in general terms. How Anna might or might not fit into this is irrelevant.

*I’d

In which case she's not a lesbian.

It’d rather leave it to individuals to define their own sexuality.

Also where did it say she’s ‘a lesbian’?

I assumed one knew the situation. Would they have set up two trans women on a blind date and not told them that nugget of info beforehand? Or a gay man and a trans man?

Typical guardian bowing to their [finish sentence yourself...]

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.

It's a shame Anna talks about the "veneer of caring about young lesbians". I know a lot of us are deeply worried about the pressure young lesbians are under to have sex with trans women and to be more accepting of "lady dick". Some women here have done their best to show solidarity with young lesbians, often at some personal cost (see eg the abuse Julie Bindel receives). It's disappointing that she seems to regard that as a bad faith position. Perhaps in a few years she'll be less dismissive of people showing their concern of her.

Ah ok, I made assumptions and didn't take enough note of who was saying what. Apologies to Anna, I will learn from that.

The Guardian need to learn from it too. I note they haven't stated whether both parties knew in advance that one of the participants was trans. I'm going to assume that, if that had been the case, they would have been very happy to clear it up. Setting up a blind date and withholding that kind of information from one party is seriously dodgy behaviour. I simply do not believe that no-one noticed or that media workers are so shy of asking difficult questions.

I really feel for young lesbians

Firstly she may not have any objection to dating TW if she was attracted to one. She just might not have been attracted to Jen.

They both had drunk a lot, how many of us have snogged someone when we were younger just because we were drunk and then next day thought nah, don’t really fancy them? That’s a possibility. Obviously if anyone felt pressured then yes that is absolutely horrible but you’re assuming the worst without knowing them.

Secondly what should the photographer have done? So they likely realised Jen was trans but why would they assume anything about the situation or the preferences of either participants?

Presumably the Guardian doesn’t think it’s putting women’s safety at risk by setting them up with males or it wouldn’t be doing the column.

It’s Jen’s unpleasant behaviour afterwards that is the problem (imo).

‘small group of obsessives‘ nope that’s the people who think that actual biological sex is irrelevant and that you can be a human chameleon. They probably think cartoons are real too.

Which is why it's very very important for them to stop any of us attending any feminist meetings with the other 5.

Exactly.

I think the issues are getting muddled. To simplify:

Lesbian willing to date trans women = fine

Lesbian unwilling to date trans women = fine

Lesbian unaware she was being set up with a trans women = not fine

I believe they think there are half a dozen of us working very hard at sockpuppeting. And then sometimes we clone ourselves.

Which is why it's very very important for them to stop any of us attending any feminist meetings with the other 5.

Please explain the consistent huge ratioing that oppose the TWAW narrative on various SM platforms if these views are those of a small group?

I believe they think there are half a dozen of us working very hard at sockpuppeting. And then sometimes we clone ourselves.

I realise its hard for you, but you are a small group of obsessives - she actually doesn;t agree with your views, as difficult as you may find that to understand

Please explain the consistent huge ratioing that oppose the TWAW narrative on various SM platforms if these views are those of a small group?

@Michelleoftheresistance

"Have LGB Alliance commented yet?"

On their facebook page yes. Similar comments to this thread.

(And yes there is nothing whatsoever wrong with someone being bi, qu*er or anything else, or indeed with not wanting to discuss your sexuality with a bunch of strangers online)

Well I was shocked when I read this on twitter, and all of the stuff that if Anna had objected then she must be a bigot. How can that be the case?

I was out with a lesbian friend of mine last night, and she was saying that she would not want to date anyone with a penis. That seems a perfectly reasonable requirement to me for a lesbian!

It was misogynistic af by the Guardian. They would not have done it to a man.

That said, it was wrong for this young woman’s sexuality to be assumed. I think people (including me) based it on the references to “gay” and “queer” but those were made by Jen.

I’m relieved it was a positive experience for her. When my sister (a lesbian) was dating she had some awful experiences when trying to (politely) avoid TW - that was different though, as my sister is a “shameless homo” (her words).

It's completely irrelevant to the broader picture whether or not the participants in the date enjoyed it or said they did. What we've been discussing all along was whether or not the Guardian were open about this beforehand, whether the apparent lesbian was informed they'd be dating a transwoman. Nothing about the Guardian's communication suggests that this was so. Even if, this time, the self declared lesbian was actually more what we would understand to be bi, and no harm was done (apart from the entitled online abuse afterwards, which is another problem) this still poses a problem for actual lesbians in general. How many are going to be put off applying now they've seen this, and not seen any assurance
from the Guardian that there was clarity and consent all along?

This is such dangerous territory the Guardian has waded into. They've swallowed TRA logic which prevents them seeing several power differentials at play with the two parties (is natal sex male vs female; and the harassment and silencing of women and lesbians online and IRL vs transactivism's current free pass to do and say anything). To then use the lesbian as a shield to avoid confronting the wider issue is pathetic.

Well glad that's all cleared up!

Just hope poor Anna now doesn't have to bear the brunt of people sneering at her for being 'woke' or accusing her of being bisexual.

Every woman should feel free to set their own boundaries without being judged.

Still maintain it would have been respectful of Jen to let the Guardian and Anna know she was trans before the date.

I was appalled at this story when I first saw it, but to be fair to ProTrans Anna genuinely doesn’t seem to have an issue with it, so she presumably is one of the young woke.

That’s not to say this is a responsible matching tactic on the part of the Guardian or something they should rush to repeat.

That Jen isn't a very nice person. No one is owed a second date.

I once told a guy that I didn't want a second date by (very polite) email and he sent me an absolutely foul response - aggressive, angry and full of personal attack. He followed it up with an apology and said he'd reacted like that because he'd really wanted to see me again and was upset.

I think I had a lucky escape and I suspect Anna has too.

(Note, my references to “man” are to my own hypothetical date, who would be a man due to my being a hetero woman)