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.

Quite apart from the ethics, the lack of professional curiosity beggars belief. If you work for the press and you don't notice anything untoward about a woman with an Adam's apple, and/or you don't want to ask questions because it might prove awkward then quite frankly you're in the wrong job.

I've had a response from the Readers' Editor's office:

^Thank you for your email about last weekend's Blind Date.

I made the Weekend team aware of your comments and they provided me with the following response to pass on:

We have spoken to both women in the last 24 hours. Both say they had a good time, as they said in the column, and Anna has asked us to make it very clear that she has no issue whatsoever with Jen being trans. She does not agree with some of the assumptions that have been made about her experience.

We match people on dates because we think they will have an enjoyable evening together.

Both women have asked us to make clear that they would prefer not to be dragged into a wider debate on social media as a result of agreeing to be part of Blind Date.

Yours sincerely,

June Sheehan
Assistant Readers' Editor^

Jen is a transwoman, not a woman and not a lesbian.

And of course Ann would say that, wouldn't she? She wants to keep her job and not have a thousand TRAs calling her a transphobe in public.

Note that by declaring Jen to be a woman they manage to skate over all the questions I asked about safeguarding and the appropriateness of sending a lesbian on a date with someone who isn't female.

My dear old lesbian sister is a Gruniard reader. I’ll ask her what she thought when I next see her - and probably cackle a bit as she takes the mickey out of my woman’s rights rants.

Even though she whinged for months (I swear every time I picked up the phone she was on the other end still ranting) when she first came across I showed her an article about the assertion that a lesbian could be homophobic for saying ‘penis, Madame? Mais non Merci!’

Both women have asked us to make clear that they would prefer not to be dragged into a wider debate on social media as a result of agreeing to be part of Blind Date.

Except that Jen is the one who took to social to complain that Anna cancelled their second date.

Jen is obviously XY. The Guardian must have known this the second the laid eyes on Jen.

If they had asked Anna whether she was happy to date an XY trans person before the blind date, which any ethical publication would, they could clear things up by saying so.

Whether or not Anna did have a problem with it is irrelevant. She, and every other lesbian, has the right to know the sex of a date in advance, especially if that date is going to be written up in a newspaper.

Of course Jen would go to the press to whinge. I’m sure they feel absolutely entitled to do this and play the victim. I’m also sure that Anna can’t say what they think.

And the Guardian dragged them into the spotlight when they took advantage of what appears to be a non consenting lesbian woman to push a political agenda in a controversial way. Did either Jen or Anna consent to that bit?

It’s kind of like that reality show on the US where the women thought they were doing to win a date with Prince Harry (yes they were that daft) - but of course it was a fake Harry look alike.

Toot yy exactly. If Jen had't publicly complained then no-one would have read their tweets where they said they didn't declare they were trans.

Way to miss the point TheGuardian . Regardless of whether Anna enjoyed the date or not, they need to be clear that their matching policy is now based on TWAW and (presumably) TMAM and that's how they'll be matched regardless of the other person's sexuality.

I assume they fill out a form saying what type of person the like to go out with. How far off the mark can they be - 40%, 50%, waaaaaay off?

" but of course it was a fake Harry look alike"

may have been a better option

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?

Thank you pencils

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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?