The Guardian... Blind Date 23 November

[Backinthecloset123]

I post this aware that I might get a warning.

However!

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/23/blind-date-jen-anna-glasses-fog-up

The woman, a lesbian, Anna (and the Guardian readership) did not reveal that Jen is a trans woman.

The whole thing is gaslighting.
And I may be deleted for that sentence.
There is a good thread on Twitter which I'll link.

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

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

Exactly.

‘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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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...]

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’d

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.

It’s a win win for them

They get together - see see???
They don’t get togetherness - awwwwww those nasty bad homophobic lesbians. Those poor people what they have to go through on a daily basis...

It's odd that Jen and friends are framing the initial dating article as positive coverage. Is that why Jen signed up? Dating as political activism/propaganda?

Yeah, I’d be careful about speaking for someone when you don’t know what their opinion is. It was blatantly obvious that it was going to turn out like this (that Anna wasn’t going to agree with her role as victim) and now it looks like you have appropriated her experiences to make a point.

FWIW, she says she kissed Jen in the guardian article. I think that if I was trying to make a polite getaway from a bad date, I wouldn’t kiss them. Jen sounds like a PITA but there were some serious leaps and stretching being performed by people like this and now it just makes everyone look bad because Anna has come out and said what she actually thinks.

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

You can describe your sexuality, you can't define your own orientation. Different orientations have names. They already have definitions. Which are protected under equality law.

I couldn't care less if Anna says she's a lesbian or not. I'm saying a woman who is attracted to a male body is not a lesbian.

But the whole argument was based on the fact that Anna was a lesbian who was misled. How can her sexuality be irrelevant? Everyone assumed she was a lesbian but there is no evidence that she actually defines herself that way. If she’s not a lesbian, there’s presumably no issue with setting her up on a date with a transwoman?

Jen is doing a right number because any rejection is interpreted as transphobia. That's what that tweet is hinting at - that Anna's reluctance to meet up again is because Anna is transphobic. I daresay that refusing a kiss would have been interpreted in the same way. It's quite a coercive tactic really

I don't think Anna can win, here. She was stitched up by the Guardian, who have behaved incredibly badly. It may be that Anna enjoyed the date and identifies as a lesbian despite being open to relationships with transwomen (although many others would then disagree with her about the definition of "lesbian"). It may be that Anna felt entirely uncomfortable with being set up with an opposite-sex date.

Of course Anna has now tweeted about it herself - so that's the final word on this, right? Well, no. She's not a free agent, here. It may be that she is being utterly truthful about how she feels in her tweets, and sees no difference between dating a tranwoman and dating another actual lesbian. But she is also aware, as we all are (whatever our opinions) that to express discomfort or anger at being set up with an opposite-sex date would be to be destroyed online, sent death threats and rape threats, may well be ostracised from her real-life friendship circles, whatever. She's not tweeting in a vacuum.

So, this isn't just about Anna, and her reaction to this event. It's about the Guardian putting one young woman in an impossible position without her consent. Even if Anna is truly, genuinely, totally fine with how it all panned out, that doesn't absolve the Guardian for their homophobic, disrespectful, dangerous fuckwittery.

Fair enough Anna may have had no objections to dating Jen as a trans person initially, however being publicly accused of bigotry and transphobia for not wishing to do so is a huge issue. It's just another way for men to force women who are not attracted to them into intimate situations with them.

I believe the guardian got thoroughly overexcited at the chance to be beyond woke and were pretty sure there was going to be a load of back clapping and praise for their airy decision to place a lesbian in this situation. As for whether or not the photographer or editor etc met Jen and saw they were trans, I am convinced they did and were beside themselves with excitement at the opportunity.

I don’t think it’s helpful to keep trying to speak for Anna or to label her not a free agent. She will just refute it and the TRAs will jump on it. Prick News will no doubt write an article about it soon.

Also, Anna herself describes the kiss as ‘a snog’. I’m sorry but most people have a limit as to how far they will go to be polite to a bad date. Peck on the cheek, yes. Snog, no way.

I think there are other hills to die on.

Also, if the Guardian wanted to be woke, why not pick someone who was up for dating trans people? (Anna may well have been someone who said she was and from her Twitter she says she is). It doesn’t make sense that the only way they could feature a trans person would be by tricking them. There are plenty of people who describe themselves as ‘pan’.

If Anna herself had claimed she had been tricked and was upset, then I would totally understand this thread. She’s said the total opposite.

I don’t think it’s helpful to keep trying to speak for Anna or to label her not a free agent.

But she isn't a free agent. None of us are. We cannot have a discussion about this without an acknowledgement that if we express "incorrect" views then we will have people setting out to destroy us.

That's not "speaking for Anna" - Anna is capable of speaking for herself, and has done so - it's placing what Anna says, what Jen says, and what absolutely everyone else in the world who comments on this says, in context.

Hi all,
We've deleted some obviously inflammatory posts from last night and have banned the poster as per our guidelines.
Many thanks for not rising but reporting, thus allowing us to deal with the situation at face value. Your co-operation in sticking to our most ancient guidelines is very much appreciated.

I just don’t see the point. No, nobody is a totally free agent but we still make active choices.
Here, there is only a problem if Anna doesn’t want to date trans people and was unhappy about being set up on a date with Jen. There is no evidence of either and in fact Anna says the opposite is true. Where is the problem? Surely the idea that trans people can go on dates isn’t the issue? So setting someone up on a date with a trans person isn’t a problem if that person is open to dating trans people. The argument here is that Anna wasn’t really happy with it despite what she says, which is speaking for her and assuming her intentions.