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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

(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)

@Michelleoftheresistance

"Have LGB Alliance commented yet?"

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

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?

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 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.