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.

Where's LGB Alliance on this?

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

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.

An actual enlarged clitoris never got anybody pregnant.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

This is how I see it.
If the Guardian on “application form” states that trans people may be your date, and the applicant needs to tick that that is fine. Or if there is an “option” to include trans in your potential dating pool,
Then great. All OK.

If not, then unacceptable. They might as well match a lesbian with a straight guy, (mmm) or a gay man with a woman. I’m straight. If I turned up to a blind date to find a trans man, I would feel awkward, embarrassed, and if when I was younger may even feel the need to reciprocate to an extent to avoid accusations of transphobia. I think for a lesbian, finding a trans woman could feel worse, given the levels of harassment gay women get from some straight men.

This date feels way off. The woman concerned here may have been absolutely fine with it. The reality is that if she wasn’t, she cannot express that, given the inevitable result, especially given what has already occurred. Regardless of whether this particular individual felt fine, I think, unless the Guardian seeks consent pre date, this was wrong.

When I saw the glasses fog up comment it confirmed what I had already mostly clocked about Jen. I say mostly because I thought surely the Guardian wouldn't hide a glaringly important fact about one of its subjects but there you are.

Fair point, Thatsme.

Can a brave poster email them to ask if they ask?

Anna has made her feelings on the matter clear so it feels very uncomfortable to continue any outrage on her behalf. Feels even worse to attack her for not being 'lesbian' enough and being too 'woke'. Leave the poor woman be!

Yep I didn't post on this thread as I don't agree with all the concern 'on Anna's behalf' although I can see where it comes from. Neither Anna nor Jen need to answer to anyone.

It's the wider questions that bother me (and have mainly been the focus here).
I also thought it was a bit off that Jen tweeted in a way that implied Anna was in some way not being truthful, but that's a separate issue.

Agree with Sapphos we have no idea what Anna is thinking or how she feels about it.

In shocking news the FWR "gang" appropriates an unwilling and unsuspecting human adult to prop up their argument. Whilst speculating wildly about terms and conditions they know nothing about and suggesting that the same human adult is an unwilling and unsuspecting victim of them.

the FWR "gang"

Just to be clear, is this "gang" affiliated to the Radicalisation Portal that MN also is?

Or do we have a People's Front of Judea situation here, where we have to take sides?

I think Anna’s nailed her colours to the mast with her call for donations to Mermaids. I know people mean well but there’s nothing to be gained by seeking to speak for adults who choose a certain set of beliefs. I know not everyone on here has but plenty of ‘poor Anna’, ‘only 23’, ‘had no choice’ comments. I think there are other battles to fight.

Anna's welcome to be sexually inclusive of however Anna sees fit. I am horribly aware of wanting to add: blink twice if you need help, as in Anna's position I might well resort to lying vigorously through my teeth and waving every virtue flag in sight to avoid being publicly hung, drawn and quartered for WrongThink or losing my job etc, the every day issues for women in modern Britain.

I am angry about the public relations job the Guardian have done here to enforce that female homosexuals should be inclusive of biological males, and have no right to know in advance that someone is biologically male because it 'doesn't matter'. Yes it fucking does, that gaslighting can get to the far side of fuck, along with males believing they can redefine womens' sexuality to suit their own selfish needs.