Please help me navigate the first stages of dating, with a conflict on trans issues (I'm a guy...)

[ConfessionalPiece]

Name changed for obvious reasons.

Relevant background:

I’m male, divorced, and recently back on the dating scene after a relationship ended about three months ago.

I’m gender critical / sex realist and politically engaged (specifically on this issue, quite engaged). I care a lot about politics, debate and ideas. I also have strong ADHD and light autistic traits, which means I can be quite intense, direct, and I know I don’t always find grey areas easy.

So, I matched with a woman on a dating app recently. There was a very strong connection straight away. We had a long conversation the night we matched, then met the next day despite some distance between us. The date went very well, with real chemistry and intimacy.

Let’s call her Lady X.

There are some practical location issues, but nothing I would necessarily see as impossible if things developed.

The connection felt unusually strong, although I know it is very early days. We seem to have similar neurodivergent traits, and there was that sense of recognising something in each other which can be quite rare.

On my Tinder profile I had said I was genuinely interested in politics. She asked whether I was right wing or a Tory / Reform voter. I said I don’t really fit neatly into party labels, and that I’m more of an issues-based voter than someone tribal about one party.

Then this came up.

While chatting on messages, she mentioned she used to have an anonymous X account where she saw herself as being an ally to people getting abuse, mainly trans people. When I asked a bit more, it turned out this was around the time J.K. Rowling published her letter. Lady X said she had been pushing back against misinformation, scaremongering and bullying. When I asked more, she sent me a link to Mermaids’ response to J.K. Rowling.

I pushed back a little and said I think there are serious issues with Mermaids and that I wouldn’t automatically trust their framing.

This has left me unsure what to do.

I think this could potentially have legs. I also know I am not always easy to be in a relationship with. Partly that is because of how I see the world, partly because of ADHD/autism, although I am happy being who I am. It can just make relationships harder. So the idea of being with someone who genuinely “gets” some of that is very appealing. It could be brilliant. Or it could be a disaster.

I also know that people with our kind of brains can sometimes become very black and white about the world. I have had to work hard on this myself. Years ago, for example, I found it extremely difficult living in a world where people eat meat, because veganism felt so morally obvious to me. I have had to learn, slowly, to sit with ambiguity and difference. I still find it hard.

I am much better sitting with grey areas and ambiguity than I was in the past.

The issue is that I really don’t believe humans can change sex. I think sex matters in some contexts, and I see this as a serious feminist issue. I am struggling to work out whether this is something we could navigate.

Do we just avoid the subject? That seems unlikely to work, especially for me.

Do we have a proper discussion and see whether there is any meeting of minds? That could go well, or it could expose a complete incompatibility.

Do I walk away now and save everyone the trouble?

I want to be live-and-let-live. I genuinely want to respect differences of opinion. But when a difference of opinion touches on women’s rights and safeguarding, I find it much harder to treat it as just another political disagreement.

Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

I know this could go in Relationships, but I thought I might get a different steer here.

And yes, I do know this is only one date so far.

Maybe this is really about politics and values more broadly, and I’m focusing on the trans issue because it is currently so salient for me.

I’d really appreciate advice, especially from women here who understand the current debate.

Please be kind. I know I may be overthinking it.

Don't call me 'cis', please. I find it offensive, for several reasons. Thanks.

Please get help. This desire of yours to talk about children's genitals to someone who doesn't is horrific. I'm a cis mother for god's sake. And a domestic violence survivor.

Children don't urinate in troughs together, they use cubicles.

Do you not know what cubicles are?!

Ugh. Another one for the 'don't reply to the red flag' list.

I just skip TPA's posts these days.

Yeah. I do think though we’re seeing. TRA meltdown in real time. I don’t know whether to get the popcorn or cringe at the hyperbole 😂

I'm afraid you've missed mine.

Yes, women have been oppressed by cis men forever.

But trans women - who choose to be women - do not hate women. They walk the same streets as us, and suffer the same misogyny.

Yes, some trans women are violent - for which they are individually, not collectively, responsible So are many, many cis women. The vast majority of trans women just want to be able to exist, nothing else.

And, as I've mentioned, trans men exist.

Some people finding their assigned gender at birth doesn't fit them, is not in any way comparable to misogyny.

Comparing trans women existing to the constant threat of violence harassment and prejudice we all suffer is very wrong in my book. I believe it belittles and trivialises the huge impact of misogyny on our lives.

There is a reason why violent cis men love anti-trans activism. It allows them to pretend that what women need are saviours, and gives them an excuse to carry out misogynistic violence - against trans women, trans men, nb people and anyone who supports them.

Such men have always demanded there be women they're allowed to attack. The steady dehumanisation of trans people had been a total gift to them.

And it allows them.to evade scrutiny of their own violence. I don't want to hear cis men being described as "realistic" about male sexual violence - I want them challenged, stopped - and when they carry it out, actually convicted.

I fear cis men with power, not a very small, oppressed minority.

I quite agree.

Ugh!!

Some classic DARVO there, you can deny and reverse as much as you like

You're the one we all think looks like a raving lunatic.

Read the articles, children are in danger and you are enabling it.

Here’s a clear point-by-point takedown of your guff.

1. “Women have been oppressed by cis men forever.”

Yes. Women have been oppressed by male people. That is exactly why sex matters. Rebranding some male people as women does not erase the relevance of male patterns of violence, entitlement or physical advantage.

1. “Trans women choose to be women.”

Women do not “choose to be women”. Female people are born into a sex class and are treated accordingly from birth. If womanhood is something males can choose into, then women’s boundaries become optional.

1. “They suffer the same misogyny.”

No, they do not. Trans women may face prejudice for being trans. That is not the same as being female in a male-dominated world from childhood: menstruation, pregnancy risk, FGM, child marriage, female-specific sexual exploitation, maternity discrimination, sex-based violence, and the lifelong socialisation of girls.

1. “Some trans women are violent, but only individually responsible.”

Individual responsibility is for criminal guilt. Safeguarding works differently. We do not assess risk by pretending categories do not matter. Male-pattern risk is relevant in prisons, refuges, changing rooms, toilets, sport, schools and intimate care. Women are allowed to say that.

1. “So are many cis women.”

This is a derail. Female violence exists, but male violence is vastly more common, more sexually motivated, and more physically dangerous to women and children. Pretending sex is irrelevant makes safeguarding weaker, not kinder.

1. “The vast majority just want to exist.”

Nobody is stopping anyone existing. The issue is not existence. The issue is access to female spaces, female sports, female data, female language, female services, and the right of women and girls to set boundaries.

1. “Trans men exist.”

Yes, and this proves the point. Female people who identify as men remain vulnerable to male violence, pregnancy, female healthcare needs and sex-based discrimination. Gender identity does not erase sex.

1. “Finding your assigned gender at birth doesn’t fit is not comparable to misogyny.”

Sex is not “assigned” like a name or a seat number. It is observed. And women objecting to male access to female spaces is not “misogyny”. It is women naming the material reality of their own oppression.

1. “Comparing trans women existing to misogyny is wrong.”

Again, nobody is objecting to “existing”. Women are objecting to being told they must surrender boundaries, language, services and safety to validate someone else’s identity. That is not trivial. That is a direct conflict of rights.

10. “Violent cis men love anti-trans activism.”
    This is a smear, not an argument. Many of the people raising these concerns are women, mothers, lesbians, abuse survivors, safeguarding professionals and left-wing feminists. Calling them a front for violent men is lazy and dishonest.

11. “It gives men an excuse to carry out misogynistic violence against trans people.”
    Women saying “no” to males in female spaces does not cause male violence. Violent men cause male violence. Blaming women’s boundaries for men’s behaviour is classic victim-blaming.

12. “Such men have always demanded there be women they’re allowed to attack.”
    And yet this poster is arguing that women must not be allowed to name male risk clearly. That helps violent men far more than safeguarding does.

13. “The dehumanisation of trans people has been a gift to them.”
    No one needs to dehumanise anyone to say: female spaces are for females, children need safeguarding, women deserve privacy and fairness, and sex-based rights are real.

14. “It allows men to evade scrutiny of their own violence.”
    The opposite. Gender ideology often makes male violence harder to name because we are told not to say male, not to record sex accurately, and not to notice patterns if the male offender identifies differently.

15. “I don’t want cis men described as realistic about male sexual violence.”
    Being realistic about male sexual violence is not the same as endorsing it. Women have spent decades demanding that society take male violence seriously. It is bizarre to attack people for doing exactly that.

16. “I fear cis men with power, not a small oppressed minority.”
    Women can object to powerful men and to males in female spaces. These are not mutually exclusive. Safeguarding does not stop applying because a group is small or claims oppression.

The basic problem with the whole post

It treats women’s boundaries as bigotry, safeguarding as hatred, sex as irrelevant, and female consent as something to be negotiated away. That is not progressive. It is dangerous, especially for girls, abuse survivors, disabled women, religious women, lesbians and any female person who needs single-sex privacy, dignity and safety.

Sorry.

I fail to see how a bunch of men who have managed to successfully bend policy to their will over a period of time can in any way be described as an oppressed minority.

Because they put on skirts and make-up, obviously

They are a parent who thinks a child can make a life changing decision about their health at age 4.

They definitely have their own dodgy thinking.

Normal parents can identify imaginative play and looking up to their primary carer / role model for what it is

We are seeing a demonstration of a parent trying to control everyone else to uphold their own nonsense playing out in real time.

Otherwise they would have to admit they are harming their own child by filling their head full of nonsense and ideas which will ultimately set them up for a big crash at some point when reality kicks in that you can't change sex.

Somehow we are Nazis for recognising reality and that sometimes nature doesn't comply with your demands.

Again with the Me and I and what you think being the best all and end all - no one else is allowed an opinion.

This is actually quite interesting as we've seen this pattern before with other posters who think they are the centre of the known universe and deny reality.

Given the parental element in this case and a 4 year old, it gives some pretty significant food for thought.

How can it be misogynistic violence if it is against men pretending to
be women? They are men. Pretending to be something you will NEVER be indicates a problem with reality.

First in response to the OP: Be up front. Don't play word games or hint at ideology. Either you two will be able to meet somewhere in the middle or not. Planning exposure of your beliefs to her to gauge a reaction over a period of time is abusive.

How can it be misogynistic violence if it is against men pretending to
be women? They are men. Pretending to be something you will NEVER be

It is misogynistic violence. Pretending trans women are men doesn't alter trans women's experiences.

Decades ago, I had a very good friend that I met on an internet forum. It turns out she was from my home town and lived not too far from where I grew up. She was a lesbian, slightly older than me, and was involved culturally within lesbian communities across North America.

When we met, she was very 'critical' of trans people. We spent a lot of time together over a few years. She witnessed 100s of tiny and not so tiny sexist aggressions that happened, regardless of how we were dressed (and for what it’s worth, neither of us were wearing makeup and both of us were usually in t-shirts and jeans/slacks or shorts).

She told me her views changed somewhat as we spent time together. It was hard for her to ignore the major examples. My being flashed by a man at a park. A man calling us ‘dykes’ when I told a bloke I was uninterested. Having to spend 10 minutes telling a man ‘no’ in a dozen different ways at a restaurant patio while we were eating lunch... just a few.

Just because your ideology refuses to acknowledge the social reality of trans people doesn't mean you can magically change how the world treats trans people (and more specifically, how men treat some trans women).

Quoting myself: "It is misogynistic violence. Pretending trans women are men doesn't alter trans women's experiences."

It should have read: "It is misogynistic violence. Pretending trans women are men doesn't alter trans women's experiences, or men's intent."

@polypostwonder it would only be misogynistic violence like that IF the males doing it actually though the blokes in dresses - were female. They don’t.

doesn’t make them any less of a prick, but they’re not doing it because they are misogynistic.

Men are not aggressive against men like they are against women.

Try again.

Trans women are men.

the intent from these males would not to be a dick head to women. It would just to be a dick head.

not ok. No excuse. Not at all. But it’s not because trans women are women. Because they are men. And those men know it.

Ah you’re funny.

no they aren’t. But - these are men we are talking about.

men in dresses.

and every man, wrongly, abusing those men - knows they are men.

My guess is you have no idea how women are treated like by men.

And you do?

You're sad, and aggressive.

I do.

Bit of a stretch.

just saying popping on a dress doesn’t make you a lady.

I think it’s awful anyone gets abused or treated badly. Always.

but it’s not misogyny.

you’ve fallen for that obvious nonsense that anyone actually passes. They don’t. Not once.

men are perfectly capable of being awful to everyone.

You can only know how a man presenting as a woman is treated.

Not how a woman is treated.