Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Today I discovered that Hinge can delete your account if as a straight male you complain about males appearing in your dating queue…

632 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 10/08/2026 01:05

I only discovered this after having made two reports, and it’s Sunday, so I suppose I’ll find out tomorrow if they are going to follow through.

  • [This paragraph has been removed at the OP's request]

I'm sure someone will be along in a minute and ask why it has to be a thing in a relationship at all but given the case I’m following through it sort of has to be out there!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
MyAmpleSheep · 12/08/2026 20:09

JustEatThePizza · 12/08/2026 20:08

12% of cisgender people are open to dating a transgender person. Openness varies greatly by sexual orientation, with straight men at 3.3%.

You do realise that 3.3% of straight men is different to 3 times as many men?

I think that 99% of those 3.3% of straight men will run a mile when they find out their date still has a penis.

Lins77 · 12/08/2026 20:13

Of course, it doesn't specify which variety of trans person the relatively high numbers of lesbians and gay men would consider dating. I suspect for many it will be the person who is biologically the same sex. I've definitely seen quite a few lesbians in relationships with transmen.

JustEatThePizza · 12/08/2026 20:20

I think men should trawl through profiles, read them, and only message people who they think they could bring at least as much value as they demand from them.

This is the same old strategy again, frame a trans rights argument around feminism. It's not right that men don't read women's profiles so therefore biological males should show up in their feed.

There is this bizarre fixation that a straight man will go through his feed and find the mythical attractive trans woman and his mind is changed and will give it a go, and if that trans woman was filtered out this "wonderful" match would never take place.

Why is it acceptable that men can filter out 90-year-old women, but not the trans women? Shouldn't men be forced to read the age of all women?

Princessblackberry · 13/08/2026 10:39

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 12/08/2026 16:42

Major red flag - to you.

But unless something weird has happened, we are not dating.

Right and you've said that you don't always think your sex is relevant to disclose so it's a bit of a red flag you aren't happy to have met someone who wants to meet you, you're instead stomping your feet that you aren't allowed to break the rules of a site you've willingly signed up to. I assure you, any grown woman knows a stroppy man is a red flag.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/08/2026 11:12

Princessblackberry · 13/08/2026 10:39

Right and you've said that you don't always think your sex is relevant to disclose so it's a bit of a red flag you aren't happy to have met someone who wants to meet you, you're instead stomping your feet that you aren't allowed to break the rules of a site you've willingly signed up to. I assure you, any grown woman knows a stroppy man is a red flag.

Good fraking lord.

you think that me objecting to MEN being in my dating feed I set exclusively to WOMEN is a RED FLAG?

As I guessed here a few days ago, I must be in the mirror universe where up is down, black is white and saying I don't like dick is a red flag to straight women.

OP posts:
Princessblackberry · 13/08/2026 11:32

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/08/2026 11:12

Good fraking lord.

you think that me objecting to MEN being in my dating feed I set exclusively to WOMEN is a RED FLAG?

As I guessed here a few days ago, I must be in the mirror universe where up is down, black is white and saying I don't like dick is a red flag to straight women.

When you choose to join a site / app that is explicit that it works that way - yes. No one is saying you should like dick, please don't bring that up (again - boundaries dude) just that you can't demand and stomp your feet that an app that advertises itself as people self declaring isn't allowing you to demand people declare their sex especially when you yourself don't seem yours always relevant - perhaps they don't? But you sound like one of those men who think every woman in the deck is there for you and you can whine when they aren't, that's not how apps work! You seem keen to not advise if you were warned you may be deleted

JustEatThePizza · 13/08/2026 11:41

Princessblackberry · 12/08/2026 11:12

Unless you know OP in real life you sound a little overinvested? I'm just curious as a GC woman I'd still find it pertinent information whether a man in meeting can behave online and follow boundaries whether he agrees with them or not because bad online behaviour is a red flag to me of bad boundaries in person.

You can't be a GC woman if you are concerned that a man is unhappy that an app doesn't allow him to filter out biological men from identifying as women.

ALovelyPinkUnicorn · 13/08/2026 11:43

it's a bit of a red flag you aren't happy to have met someone who wants to meet you
so, if someone wants to “meet” me, it’s a red flag to not, because if they want to I should?

Retiredfromthere · 13/08/2026 11:58

Princessblackberry · 13/08/2026 11:32

When you choose to join a site / app that is explicit that it works that way - yes. No one is saying you should like dick, please don't bring that up (again - boundaries dude) just that you can't demand and stomp your feet that an app that advertises itself as people self declaring isn't allowing you to demand people declare their sex especially when you yourself don't seem yours always relevant - perhaps they don't? But you sound like one of those men who think every woman in the deck is there for you and you can whine when they aren't, that's not how apps work! You seem keen to not advise if you were warned you may be deleted

How is it explicit that this site has a trans inclusive definition of what the 'women-only' filter means? I can't see how it could have been explicit as OP is someone who pays attention to this sort of fudge. He would have spotted it.

Is it used in the adverts for Hinge? That would support the arguments by @Lexibletheflexible that it was a selling point.

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 12:07

Retiredfromthere · 13/08/2026 11:58

How is it explicit that this site has a trans inclusive definition of what the 'women-only' filter means? I can't see how it could have been explicit as OP is someone who pays attention to this sort of fudge. He would have spotted it.

Is it used in the adverts for Hinge? That would support the arguments by @Lexibletheflexible that it was a selling point.

You could argue, that given Hinge offers options for gender and gender identity, that many people may believe that they say gender but really mean sex. Particularly as they say it is the addition of the latter options that is designed to be more ‘welcoming’.

ETA. Looking at it more closely. It seems man and woman are pretty useless categories. But I wonder how closely most people will look.

https://help.hinge.co/hc/en-us/articles/36311196515731-Gender-and-Sexuality-on-Profiles

Retiredfromthere · 13/08/2026 12:20

Thanks for the link @BackToLurk
I was drawn into that link and (opposite of impressed) by this bit (follows a long list of genders) ... They welcome feedback it seems ...

We recognize that this aspect doesn't come close to capturing the spectrum of gender. We're continuing to explore new ways to represent all of our members, so if you don’t see an option that feels right for you, we welcome your feedback!

Datun · 13/08/2026 12:25

We recognize that this aspect doesn't come close to capturing the spectrum of gender. We're continuing to explore new ways to represent all of our members, so if you don’t see an option that feels right for you, we welcome your feedback!

Unless it conforms to reality, respects sexual orientation and actually helps you find a partner. Then you can fuck right off.

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 12:30

Interesting perspective re other filters and the argument around ‘just giving users what they want’

https://medium.com/@aileenaquinn/you-need-to-talk-about-your-ethnicity-filter-an-open-letter-to-hinge-b7641e0f2e26

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 12:38

Thinking about that piece more. I suspect what Lexi means when they say the app gives users what they want, what that translates to is that largely white, largely middle-class users who identify as ‘progressive’ get what they want. Other people with less influence, and blunter elbows, don’t.

JustEatThePizza · 13/08/2026 13:04

BackToLurk · 13/08/2026 12:30

Interesting perspective re other filters and the argument around ‘just giving users what they want’

https://medium.com/@aileenaquinn/you-need-to-talk-about-your-ethnicity-filter-an-open-letter-to-hinge-b7641e0f2e26

The same question needs to be asked, why are certain preferences acceptable and others not?

These people who want filters removed seem to think that they can magically make the world a better place if people are forced onto others.

Nothing says virtue signalling more than a white woman saying that she doesn't want race filters.

Grindr removed the race filters and now people see a lot of profiles saying "No Asians, No Blacks etc". Surely that it more racist? Do trans people want to keep swiping on profiles that say "No Trans"?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/08/2026 13:05

JustEatThePizza · 13/08/2026 13:04

The same question needs to be asked, why are certain preferences acceptable and others not?

These people who want filters removed seem to think that they can magically make the world a better place if people are forced onto others.

Nothing says virtue signalling more than a white woman saying that she doesn't want race filters.

Grindr removed the race filters and now people see a lot of profiles saying "No Asians, No Blacks etc". Surely that it more racist? Do trans people want to keep swiping on profiles that say "No Trans"?

"Nothing says virtue signalling more than a white woman saying that she doesn't want race filters."

Worse, she says it should only be available to "POC".

OP posts:
SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/08/2026 13:32

Princessblackberry · 13/08/2026 11:32

When you choose to join a site / app that is explicit that it works that way - yes. No one is saying you should like dick, please don't bring that up (again - boundaries dude) just that you can't demand and stomp your feet that an app that advertises itself as people self declaring isn't allowing you to demand people declare their sex especially when you yourself don't seem yours always relevant - perhaps they don't? But you sound like one of those men who think every woman in the deck is there for you and you can whine when they aren't, that's not how apps work! You seem keen to not advise if you were warned you may be deleted

@Princessblackberry , you are collapsing several completely different things: disliking an individual profile, reporting a category error, breaking a company rule, and violating a woman’s personal boundaries.

I did not report someone because they were unattractive, divorced, had children, or were simply “not my type”. I reported a male profile appearing in a feed I had explicitly set to women. Sex is not a minor dating preference comparable to an old photograph. For a heterosexual person, it is the basis of sexual orientation.

Nor does clicking “accept” mean someone has knowingly read, understood and endorsed every line of a dating app’s boilerplate. Almost nobody reads the terms and conditions of anything, least of all before joining a dating website. Even where such terms are contractually effective, that does not make every policy reasonable, morally correct, or immune from criticism.

You also wrote:

“You seem keen to not advise if you were warned you may be deleted.”

That is simply false. I never said Hinge had personally warned me in advance. I said that, after I reported a male profile for appearing in the women’s section, I was shown the policy saying that reporting someone for being trans could be a deletable offence. Those are not the same thing. You have substituted a claim I did not make and then criticised me for avoiding an answer to it.

Your use of the word “boundaries” is also confused. You are perfectly entitled to say that particular language makes you uncomfortable and ask someone not to use it towards you again. What you cannot fairly do is retroactively declare that a previously unstated boundary has been crossed, then condemn someone for not having known about it.

You voluntarily entered a public discussion specifically about sex, sexual orientation, genital compatibility and dating. Other posters had already used phrases such as “don’t like dick” and considerably stronger language. When I said I do not like dick, it was not directed sexually at you, nor was it an invitation or personal comment. It was a concise explanation of why a male is not a possible partner for me. The fact that you are female and I am male has nothing to do with whether I am permitted to state my own sexual orientation in a discussion you willingly joined.

Your phrases about me “demanding” and “stomping my feet” are not arguments. They are attempts to portray me as angry, childish and unreasonable without any evidence that I am behaving that way. Nothing I have written amounts to stamping my feet. It is simply easier to caricature someone’s tone than answer the substance of what they are saying, but the tactic rather backfires when the caricature is based on nothing.

The same applies to:

“But you sound like one of those men who think every woman in the deck is there for you and you can whine when they aren’t.”

That is an attempt to make me sound sexist and entitled, despite your knowing virtually nothing about me. I have never suggested that every woman in a dating deck should be interested in me. Obviously most will not be, for any number of reasons, just as I will not be interested in every woman shown to me. The issue is whether someone belongs in the category I asked the app to show me, not whether that person is personally attracted to me.

Your statement tells us far more about the prejudicial category into which you place men who disagree with you than it does about me. Treating a man’s disagreement as evidence that he is entitled, angry, unsafe or unable to respect women is a sexist generalisation. Calling it feminism does not stop it being misandry.

Nor is disagreement with a corporate policy evidence that someone cannot respect personal consent. Corporate rules and interpersonal boundaries are entirely different things. A person can challenge a platform’s rule while being completely scrupulous about another individual’s right to say no.

Finally, this is exactly the principle that Mumsnet posters have repeatedly defended in relation to lesbian dating sites: males should not be inserted into the feeds of lesbians seeking females. That argument is correct. But the principle does not suddenly reverse because the person seeking females is a heterosexual man.

A lesbian woman seeking females and a heterosexual man seeking females are both excluding males on the basis of sexual orientation. Men should not appear in a lesbian woman’s female dating feed, and men should not appear in a heterosexual man’s female dating feed. The sex of the person operating the filter changes. The principle does not.

OP posts:
womanwithissues · 13/08/2026 19:19

So to sum up @Princessblackberryit would be fine for a dating app to delete a straight man for complaining that he's being shown men in his dating pool. And he's a red flag for complaining about it. Got it.

I'm on Hinge now and then. I'm a straight woman and I see women (trans men) in my dating pool at times. If I complain about this am I entitled and a red flag? And are Hinge right to delete my account?

Datun · 14/08/2026 08:47

Among other things, Ray Blanchard who came up with the transgender typology, claimed that homosexual transsexuals were transitioning in order to attract straight men.

In which case, I guess it's unsurprising that they are infuriated when straight men say you're kidding right.

Princessblackberry · 14/08/2026 16:12

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/08/2026 13:32

@Princessblackberry , you are collapsing several completely different things: disliking an individual profile, reporting a category error, breaking a company rule, and violating a woman’s personal boundaries.

I did not report someone because they were unattractive, divorced, had children, or were simply “not my type”. I reported a male profile appearing in a feed I had explicitly set to women. Sex is not a minor dating preference comparable to an old photograph. For a heterosexual person, it is the basis of sexual orientation.

Nor does clicking “accept” mean someone has knowingly read, understood and endorsed every line of a dating app’s boilerplate. Almost nobody reads the terms and conditions of anything, least of all before joining a dating website. Even where such terms are contractually effective, that does not make every policy reasonable, morally correct, or immune from criticism.

You also wrote:

“You seem keen to not advise if you were warned you may be deleted.”

That is simply false. I never said Hinge had personally warned me in advance. I said that, after I reported a male profile for appearing in the women’s section, I was shown the policy saying that reporting someone for being trans could be a deletable offence. Those are not the same thing. You have substituted a claim I did not make and then criticised me for avoiding an answer to it.

Your use of the word “boundaries” is also confused. You are perfectly entitled to say that particular language makes you uncomfortable and ask someone not to use it towards you again. What you cannot fairly do is retroactively declare that a previously unstated boundary has been crossed, then condemn someone for not having known about it.

You voluntarily entered a public discussion specifically about sex, sexual orientation, genital compatibility and dating. Other posters had already used phrases such as “don’t like dick” and considerably stronger language. When I said I do not like dick, it was not directed sexually at you, nor was it an invitation or personal comment. It was a concise explanation of why a male is not a possible partner for me. The fact that you are female and I am male has nothing to do with whether I am permitted to state my own sexual orientation in a discussion you willingly joined.

Your phrases about me “demanding” and “stomping my feet” are not arguments. They are attempts to portray me as angry, childish and unreasonable without any evidence that I am behaving that way. Nothing I have written amounts to stamping my feet. It is simply easier to caricature someone’s tone than answer the substance of what they are saying, but the tactic rather backfires when the caricature is based on nothing.

The same applies to:

“But you sound like one of those men who think every woman in the deck is there for you and you can whine when they aren’t.”

That is an attempt to make me sound sexist and entitled, despite your knowing virtually nothing about me. I have never suggested that every woman in a dating deck should be interested in me. Obviously most will not be, for any number of reasons, just as I will not be interested in every woman shown to me. The issue is whether someone belongs in the category I asked the app to show me, not whether that person is personally attracted to me.

Your statement tells us far more about the prejudicial category into which you place men who disagree with you than it does about me. Treating a man’s disagreement as evidence that he is entitled, angry, unsafe or unable to respect women is a sexist generalisation. Calling it feminism does not stop it being misandry.

Nor is disagreement with a corporate policy evidence that someone cannot respect personal consent. Corporate rules and interpersonal boundaries are entirely different things. A person can challenge a platform’s rule while being completely scrupulous about another individual’s right to say no.

Finally, this is exactly the principle that Mumsnet posters have repeatedly defended in relation to lesbian dating sites: males should not be inserted into the feeds of lesbians seeking females. That argument is correct. But the principle does not suddenly reverse because the person seeking females is a heterosexual man.

A lesbian woman seeking females and a heterosexual man seeking females are both excluding males on the basis of sexual orientation. Men should not appear in a lesbian woman’s female dating feed, and men should not appear in a heterosexual man’s female dating feed. The sex of the person operating the filter changes. The principle does not.

Nor does clicking “accept” mean someone has knowingly read, understood and endorsed every line of a dating app’s boilerplate. Almost nobody reads the terms and conditions of anything, least of all before joining a dating website. Even where such terms are contractually effective, that does not make every policy reasonable, morally correct, or immune from criticism.

It actually completely means that, which all of us as adults know. I don't like that having a Disney plus subscription means I can never use Disney, but I'm not gonna have a sulk online because those are the conditions I accepted. What makes you sound childish is your streams of text about how it's just so unfair and also that of a woman reads you as sexist as entitled that's just so wrong while you smash out another essay. It's not a unique character flaw of yours, just the usual male entitlement.

Princessblackberry · 14/08/2026 16:14

womanwithissues · 13/08/2026 19:19

So to sum up @Princessblackberryit would be fine for a dating app to delete a straight man for complaining that he's being shown men in his dating pool. And he's a red flag for complaining about it. Got it.

I'm on Hinge now and then. I'm a straight woman and I see women (trans men) in my dating pool at times. If I complain about this am I entitled and a red flag? And are Hinge right to delete my account?

If those are the conditions yeah! Ita common sense. There are so many dating apps and websites now, if you want to find one with biological sex filters you can and there are numerous apps where you will undoubtedly find no trans people because of the audience it carers to. You don't get to complain about who's in your dating "pool" because no one is forcing you to match or like any of them.

KnottyAuty · 14/08/2026 22:52

Bumping past the visitor’s 2010 zombie threads…

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 15/08/2026 22:41

Princessblackberry · 14/08/2026 16:12

Nor does clicking “accept” mean someone has knowingly read, understood and endorsed every line of a dating app’s boilerplate. Almost nobody reads the terms and conditions of anything, least of all before joining a dating website. Even where such terms are contractually effective, that does not make every policy reasonable, morally correct, or immune from criticism.

It actually completely means that, which all of us as adults know. I don't like that having a Disney plus subscription means I can never use Disney, but I'm not gonna have a sulk online because those are the conditions I accepted. What makes you sound childish is your streams of text about how it's just so unfair and also that of a woman reads you as sexist as entitled that's just so wrong while you smash out another essay. It's not a unique character flaw of yours, just the usual male entitlement.

That reply rather proves my point. You have ignored every substantive issue I raised and fallen back on the same three devices: caricaturing disagreement as a “sulk”, treating the length of a response as evidence of wrongdoing, and smearing me as sexist because I am male.

Clicking “accept” may amount to accepting contractual terms. It plainly does not mean a person has actually read, understood and morally endorsed every line. Those are completely different propositions. You claimed they were identical, when they obviously are not.

Your Disney example does not rescue the argument. Even where a company can rely on a term, customers remain free to criticise it, question whether it is reasonable, challenge it, or campaign for it to be changed. Accepting access to a service does not require intellectual or moral submission to every corporate policy. Criticism is not a breach of contract, and writing about a policy is not “having a sulk”.

You have also ignored the factual correction I gave you. I never said Hinge personally warned me before I reported the profile. I said that after I reported a male appearing in the women’s section, I discovered that Hinge treats reporting someone on that basis as a potentially deletable offence. You invented a claim that I had refused to answer whether I was warned, even though I had never said I was. Rather than acknowledge that, you have simply moved on.

You have ignored the distinction between a personal boundary and a corporate rule. You have ignored the fact that you entered a public discussion about sex, genitals and dating voluntarily. You have ignored that numerous women in the thread had already used the same language. You have ignored the direct comparison with lesbians being shown male profiles. You have ignored virtually everything that makes your original argument collapse.

Instead, you now suggest that writing a detailed response is itself childish and entitled. It is not. “You wrote more words than me” is not an argument. Calling a reasoned reply an “essay” does not answer any of it.

Nor does the sentence “a woman reads you as sexist and entitled” prove that I am either. Women are human beings, not infallible moral authorities. A woman can misunderstand someone, make an unfair assumption, or rely on a prejudice just as readily as a man can. An accusation does not become true because the person making it is female.

And “the usual male entitlement” is exactly what it appears to be: a sweeping, sex-based insult used in place of evidence. You know almost nothing about me, yet repeatedly reach for stereotypes about angry, childish, entitled men whenever your reasoning is challenged. That speaks far more clearly to your general attitude towards men than it does to my character.

I have not argued that every woman in a dating deck exists for me. Obviously she does not. I have argued that when I select women, the platform should show me females rather than males. That is the same principle Mumsnet quite properly defends when lesbians object to males appearing in lesbian dating spaces.

You have not rebutted that principle. You have simply decided that, because I am a man, describing me as entitled is easier than answering it.

Deliberately made this long 😜

OP posts:
WomanXXWorldsOriginsofMothersofAllNations · 15/08/2026 23:10

Ahem having a Disney plus subscription means I can never use Disney was such a wild claim, I looked it up.

No, having a Disney+ subscription does not mean you can never use Disney. You can stream movies and shows on the service, visit theme parks, and buy merchandise normally.
The idea that a subscription stops you from using Disney comes from a viral legal misunderstanding.
Where the Rumor Started

  • Disney once used a standard arbitration clause in a wrongful death lawsuit defense involving a restaurant at a Disney resort.
  • The legal argument stated that because the victim previously signed up for a Disney+ trial, a clause in the streaming service terms meant disputes should go to private arbitration rather than a court trial.
  • Disney later dropped that specific legal defense and stated they would let the lawsuit proceed in court, clarifying that the streaming terms do not block people from suing over unrelated non-streaming incidents.

Rather supports @SingleSexSpacesInSchools argument that Even where a company can rely on a term, customers remain free to criticise it, question whether it is reasonable, challenge it, or campaign for it to be changed. Accepting access to a service does not require intellectual or moral submission to every corporate policy. Criticism is not a breach of contract, and writing about a policy is not “having a sulk”.

It seems @Princessblackberry you are free to enjoy Disney and need to not be so slavish to boilerplates.

Shedmistress · 16/08/2026 07:57

WomanXXWorldsOriginsofMothersofAllNations · 15/08/2026 23:10

Ahem having a Disney plus subscription means I can never use Disney was such a wild claim, I looked it up.

No, having a Disney+ subscription does not mean you can never use Disney. You can stream movies and shows on the service, visit theme parks, and buy merchandise normally.
The idea that a subscription stops you from using Disney comes from a viral legal misunderstanding.
Where the Rumor Started

  • Disney once used a standard arbitration clause in a wrongful death lawsuit defense involving a restaurant at a Disney resort.
  • The legal argument stated that because the victim previously signed up for a Disney+ trial, a clause in the streaming service terms meant disputes should go to private arbitration rather than a court trial.
  • Disney later dropped that specific legal defense and stated they would let the lawsuit proceed in court, clarifying that the streaming terms do not block people from suing over unrelated non-streaming incidents.

Rather supports @SingleSexSpacesInSchools argument that Even where a company can rely on a term, customers remain free to criticise it, question whether it is reasonable, challenge it, or campaign for it to be changed. Accepting access to a service does not require intellectual or moral submission to every corporate policy. Criticism is not a breach of contract, and writing about a policy is not “having a sulk”.

It seems @Princessblackberry you are free to enjoy Disney and need to not be so slavish to boilerplates.

So that user literally did not read the terms of engagement.

What a red flag! Cancel thyself @Princessblackberry

This thread prevents users from posting on it until they have been members for at least 3 days.