The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

I’m straight and have new insight into “straight privilege.”

Viz - if I went on a date with a man who then dissed me to the world for (a) not responding to his texts fast enough (!) and (b) declining a second date, I’d be PISSED.

And nothing - not even randoms commenting online & making annoying assumptions about me - would compel me to soothe that man’s ego after the fact.

It does make me wonder, have they really thought about how this sort of thing could become awkward because of the public element?

This is a particular way of being publicly unpleasant about not getting a second date. But anyone they feature could actually say things on twitter etc about the date that the Guardian might be really uncomfortable to be associated with, and the individual would have far more visibility than just a person who was on a regular, private date. I could be difficult for the other person on the date in a lot of different ways.

Their editorial staff might have thought, well, we won't publish anything about a date that goes really wrong, but they can't stop people from using the paper for visibility and putting the problematic stuff online.

It's the public shaming for not wanting a second date that bothers me most, I think. The Guardian has given this person a platform to do that by featuring them, and although in this case the other person seems to be saying she's OK with the assumption that she should date transwomen others may not be, and it's really not OK to help someone unleash the social media ragemonkeys on them.

(Btw, I am not defending the G who messed up here, but got lucky.)

I agree kitten - I think that referred to Jen’s friends (“already begging to meet her”) & the well-meaning tweeters responding to their date story with “yassss queens!” etc.

I get the disappointment of not having a second date. But no one owes you one, and complaining publicly about it as Jen did seems pretty self-centred.

The good news is that the young woman involved was happy to be matched with a TW. I’m not entirely sure where the idea that she was a lesbian came from (not the Guardian)? She was fine with the date itself, just didn’t want a second one. Which is fair enough!

InionEile

In terms of a publication like The Guardian, they are going to think, is this a thing that is generally safe, meeting up with strangers. Could we be considered negligent and have the pants sued off.

If they think it's safe enough for heterosexual women, they are probably going to also think its ok for lesbian women. Or to put it the other way, if its not safe enough for lesbians they'd really have to reconsider having that kind of feature at all.

I think at a certain point, if we are going on blind dates, anyone has to realise there is a risk. People may not be who they say, and I think anyone who goes on a date like that should do so with real care - a public place, an easy excuse to cut it short, no drugs or alcohol, an ability to leave and not be followed. Even limiting personal information given to the other person.

I have little patience for the Guardian, and I have doubts about whether this blind date business is a good idea at all, but I'm not convinced they are really at fault given the parameters of the arrangement. People know how the dates are chosen and that there isn't much oversight, they know because that is how they themselves were chosen.

ProTransUK
“Small group of obsessives”. Sure you’re not talking about TRA’s.

The "just as upset as I imagine others are" is a bit creepy too. Who are these others, and why are they so emotionally invested in the outcome of a date that they weren't personally involved int?

Just imagine being on the receiving end of that kind of emotional blackmail. Not only the person you went out with but a bunch of randoms on Twitter who may not even know that person have decided that you bloody well better agree to a second date or it's the public corner of shame for you.

I’ve followed “blind date” on and off for years. I’ve never before seen one datee publicly shame the other for not seeing them again - has anyone?

I mean, often one or both parties lack enthusiasm and there is no second date. Which is pretty normal.

But have I missed this kind of reaction in the past, cause it seems way out of line:

Yes, goosefoot, obviously that is always a risk that women take when we go on blind dates but the whole point of this situation is that lesbians generally do not have to deal with that risk as a feature of their dating lives - unless they’ve been matched with someone who identifies as a female but was in fact born male and retains their male physical features & strength advantage.

It’s not that hard to see the asymmetry of Jen and Anna’s respective situations if you think about it for more than 5 minutes.

Unless of course you don’t believe that biological sex is real and therefore a woman going on any date with either a male or a female faces the same risk in both scenarios - in which case you’re clearly in denial of the reality of women’s lives. Or you just don’t care because validating the feelings of male-born people is more important to you than the safety of women.

Yet somehow Anna is supposed to put up with the danger that Jen poses to her as someone who was born male and is physically larger and stronger.

The Guardian sets up opposite sex dates all the time with this feature. Not to mention their online personals. I imagine if they thought it was too risky they'd not do any of it.

So, protrans, you think deception regarding sex is ok ? You think it’s ok for the guardian to deceive the lesbian? You think the abuse she is getting is deserved for not wanting to continue?

It is far too dangerous for Anna to express any GC views - she would be at great risk from certain aggressive TRAs.

I think the Guardian are completely in the wrong and their response was woeful. They should understand how serious a gas light this was. I also agree that they wouldn't do this to a gay man.

But even if Anna expressed her willingness to date Pan or Trans she is perfectly in her rights to refuse another date without being subjected to Jen's sly complaints and the rest of the abuse. What Narcissism and aggression - you have to date me and want a relationship with me. We've seen it all before.

The Guardian should think seriously about the impact of this story on Anna and other Lesbians. A nice light hearted story (Jess carter Morley)? Not at all. It's ended up in the abuse and bullying of an innocent young lesbian woman. Because she didn't want a 2nd date. They should be ashamed. And if they are not going to properly enquire or inform then they should stop the whole column. It could end in much worse and this was bad enough,

Note for context - Lara is a lesbian and currently navigating the dating scene, and has noted before her own challenges - so many TW on lesbian dating apps, and it’s impossible to screen for lesbians-only.

That said, the young woman on this date has now clarified that she personally has no issue with dating TW and wants to be left out of this discussion.

Hence I think we should drop all further reference to her and their date - we can discuss the wider situation while respecting her request for privacy.

If the true status of Jen was immediately obvious to most of us then the photographer or editor should have noticed and probably did. Why wasn’t Anna told the reality of the situation?It’s all about validation validation validation and Jen must have gloated about passing so well...apparently. Now the shit has hit the fan Jen should apologise and stop the stalky male behaviour , and the Guardian should apologise publicly. Anna needs to know she is supported here and thank the goddess that she is safe and clear about her choices in the future. TRAs just leave her alone. Really angry that this was all facilitated by cowardly or woke guardian staff.

Anna’s words have all been perfectly chosen. Some online comments have inappropriately assumed things about her (eg her sexuality). Which is strictly her own business and none of ours.

It is not relevant to the real issue here anyway, which is the the abysmal conduct by the Guardian:

(1) rampant misogyny (they would never put a straight man in that position). Their “oh we had no idea!” is an obvious LIE - prince Andrew was more convincing.

(2) they put a 23 yo woman in that situation for clicks, saw her get abused online for politely declining a second date - and are now leaning on her to bail them out of it! Using her as a shield.

Shame on you, Guardian. No one is fooled.

They both said they had a snog? It upsets me so much if Anna felt she had to reciprocate that to not be unwoke or the unsaid word. The not messaging enthusiastically and not wanting a second date is such a polite way of disengaging.

It's funny: I read this 'blind date' piece as it's one of the sections of the Guardian I usually browse through and noticed something was odd about it. It didn't seem like a good match and there was a kind of false air to the entire story from Jen's point of view, way more enthusiastic than usual. On my second read of it to figure out what was unsettling me, I noticed that Jen had an Adam's apple but I assumed that Anna had checked a box to signify that she was interested in dating both women and trans women.

But it seems like that wasn't the case. This is how far the 'sex is not real' madness had got us - setting lesbian women up on dates with male-born people where they could be subjected to violence or abuse if they refuse to play along with the delusion.

This is something the TRAs never get: Anna is at far more risk in this situation than Jen because Jen is biologically male. Would they set Jen up with a straight man? Of course not, because they know it would put Jen in danger. Yet somehow Anna is supposed to put up with the danger that Jen poses to her as someone who was born male and is physically larger and stronger. Women are supposed to just deal with it and have our boundaries violated. And if we don't just deal with it, we're transphobic. It's such a twisted entitled mindset.

It may be that the photographer noticed but just really didn't have much to do with the rest of the story. He or she may have just taken the photo and sent it in to the right editor, not knowing much more about the set up.

As far as not vetting the people for safety I guess it's like going on a date with someone you meet on an online dating thing. I imagine people make a point of public places and such.

Thank you pencils

Pencilsinspace just posted this on the NHS thread and I thought it was worth a reminder here.

"PROHIBITED CONDUCT UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT

1. Harassment

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

A service provider is prohibited from subjecting you to unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you."

How is what the Guardian have done here not opening themselves right up to a claim of harrassment? Maybe not from this lesbian this time, but in general?