One of my OK Cupid "Favorites" Questions my SJW Street Cred

I am currently on three dating sites: TransGenderDate.com, PlentyOfFish.com, and OKCupid.com.

TGDate is a piss-poor dating site, having few real tools to help match compatible people.

OKC and PoF at least do some testing, and between these two, OKC provides more useful feedback in that you can quickly size people up based on their Friend, Match, and Enemy scores.

So, the funniest thing happened the other day on OKC. I got an email from someone I hadn't written yet--but she was on my list of potential candidates.

This is what the email said:

In my book anyone who self identifies as "woman" is one TG or not. I find it interesting that you included this on your profile. 

I applaud the haircut,

What's kind of amusing is that this woman writes for a living, so I have certain expectations of her. No "Hello, my name is...." or any of that silly Emily Post stuff. I quickly deduced this was not some pretext to start a conversation that would lead to an actual date--despite the comment about my haircut. Instead, this was something else.

I wrote her back, giving the appearance that I wasn't "onto her game" by including a little dating site banter of my own--about her hair, etc.:

Hey there K#######, 

I noticed you a long time ago, and you're on "the list"--so it's nice to hear from you! 

I included the info about my being open to both cis-gendered and trans-gendered women because there are heteronormative, cis-gendered women for whom this may be a deal-breaker, assuming they might be interested in a sexual relationship with me. 

I don't (necessarily) believe this makes such people "bigots," or "less enlightened." I can even empathize with the discomfort some cis-gendered women might feel at the thought of someone with a penis sitting in the stall next to them in a public restroom. 

There are real life sensitivities at play, and to declare "Trans-gendered women are WOMEN--PERIOD." doesn't adequately reflect the complexity of the issue, which demands education and dialogue, not sloganeering. 

I tend to identify as "liberal," but since I started reading Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind," I've become a bit more nuanced in my thinking when considering some of the positions taken by "the other side." 

I hope your thesis is going well, and that my writing gets me passing grade with you, at the very least. (If I was comfortable with using "LOL" - I'm not, there would have been a "LOL" at the end of the previous sentence. I don't mind so much when other people use it, though.) 

[A bow in response to your polite applause.] It's much easier to take care of, that's for sure. 

I like your haircut and color too. From your profile you seem like a lovely, fun person. 

My name's Prem, by the way, and it was lovely to hear from you. 

Warm regards!

(I wasn't lying. She's nice looking and seems nice enough, despite the SJW tendencies.) She replied within a few minutes with this:

Hi Prem- 

Well I have transgender friends and I feel comfortable with the idea self-identifying gender labels. Yes, I am more than aware that people have issues around gender and sexuality and that there needs to be "education and dialogue." Still, I don't feel that what I have written is sloganeering. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 
K########

Testy! My suspicion that she was challenging my suggesting that not everyone in the world views transgendered women as being exactly the same as cis-gendered (genetic) women, confirmed.

So I wrote back:

Dear K########, 

Where did I write that what you said was "sloganeering?" 

I was specifically referring to the simplistic notion, the kind one finds Tweeted a lot by people who act as if they have a superior world-view, by default, specifically along the lines of: 

"Trans-gendered women are WOMEN--PERIOD." 

I don't recall you writing that. 

"Trans-gendered women are WOMEN--PERIOD." suggests there is no room for discussion. What you said reflected your own perspective, one that I tend to share, actually. I just don't expect everyone else to. 

People who say things like "Trans-gendered women are WOMEN--PERIOD." tend NOT to be open to discussions about women with concerns about who gets to use the ladies room. For them, women with such concerns are simply "wrong." It's not quite as simple as that, for me. 

Another about "group identity" stuff--we tend to congregate with like-minded people and thus we don't appreciate the extent of other points of view. If we are going to make any real progress in this country, on a social justice level, economic justice level, or criminal justice level, we have to get out of our echo chambers and have authentic conversations "across the aisle." 

Trying to do it "winner takes all style" will never work, because today's winners become tomorrow's losers, and yesterday's "gains" (by whomever is no longer in power) can be reversed by the new winners/former losers. For this reasons, win/win compromise is better--make all parties have some stake in the outcome. 

Or maybe not. I kind of hate politics these days--but, we work with the system we have--or make an end-run around it...or do nothing at all. 

Your welcome. Likewise, I'm sure. 
Ciao K########.

And as I screwed up on some punctuation, spelling, and grammar, I followed up with:

Sorry for the typos--hopefully they didn't obscure the intended meaning.

And no further word from her that evening, but the following morning she sent me this:

I noticed the typos, but they didn't keep me from reading and understanding your message. 

I did write "In my book anyone who self identifies as "woman" is one TG or not," so you might have construed that as sloganeering; from you message I see you did not. 

I'm a mite touchy about being lectured about topics I hold important. I thought it was interesting that you dedicated two paragraphs to your attraction to transgender women and your vehemence about not being labelled. I hadn't seen that before and I thought it deserved recognition of some kind. 

I wish you much luck in your search.

Cool. She's self-aware enough to recognize that she might have been "touchy." (And also douchy enough to mention that she noticed the typos. Please note that I didn't feel the need to make the same revelation about hers. Just sayin'.)

And though I didn't spell it out for her there, I am doing so here--I am self-aware enough to admit to framing her from the very beginning as a "Social Justice Warrior" type, based on the stance she took in exchange, as well as the fact that she explicitly uses the terms "social justice" on her own profile.

I don't know her well enough to doubt her word when she suggests that she found it "interesting" without intending a value judgment, or the need to "school" me -- though she herself mentions being annoyed by me attempting to "educate" her on subjects she cares about--another tell-tale sign of the Social Justice Warrior--they take pride in their causes, and don't take kindly to people on the wrong side of them, or not "in the fight" suggesting that they don't already have all the required facts to render a final judgment on whatever matter might be at hand--in this case, that TG women are "women," period.

Anyway, I wrote her back the following, silly me, revealing the hurt little boy inside:

Hello again Katherine, 

Your "touchiness" triggered suspicion that you had no interest in me at all as a person, but simply felt the need to "school" me, with the addendum regarding my haircut acting as camouflage. 

I wish you luck as well, in all things. 

Prem

And she promptly replied:

I'm not trying to school anybody. I thought it was an interesting thing to include on a profile and I really do think the haircut was a good choice.

And I say "Thank you K########!" for helping me get my list down to something a bit more manageable!

The missing question (Y'all Got Issues #2)

I just happened upon another OKC "match," and a counter-intuitive one at that, because she's got a 53% "Enemy" rating! I've figured out that anything above 30% triggers the "Y'all Got Issues" tab.

So I took a look at her "issues" and found out that she's only answered four questions thus far, and I have answered them as well. Furthermore, for the three questions displayed for her under "Y'all Got Issues," I have the exact same answers as she does. So that missing question, which I assume we answered differently, must be a doozy to tilt things over to 53% Enemy.

Or maybe I've got it completely wrong, and these matches are based on other factors besides the answers to these questions?

It's rather odd. She seems nice enough on her lightly worded profile, and she's one of the nicest looking ladies I've encountered thus far that meets my selection criteria.

Color me....confused.

Y'all Got Issues - from OK Cupid

OK Cupid has a variety of features to help its members evaluate potential matches. Aside from member profiles--where they can describe themselves and what they are looking for in their own words, there are a battery of "survey" questions that you can answer. Things like: "Would you ever sleep with someone on the first date?" The answers to these questions factor into OK Cupid's match-making algorithms, and determine (in part or in whole, I'm not sure) how other members compare.

OKC provides "meta-data" in the form of three numbers for each member, as seen from the perspective of any other member. These numbers are "Match," "Friend," and "Enemy." (ENEMY?! Really??!!!) So yeah--it seems that higher Match and Friend scores, with lower Enemy scores, make for a more likely connection--though without some sort of testing, who can say whether this is "true" or not? It seems that we are all just trusting OK Cupid will "get it right" in this regard.

I don't know why, but I've made 30% my cut-off point on the enemy score. There are a couple people I've favorited, or given 4 star ratings that are a little higher than this, but that was earlier in the whole process.

Each OK Cupid profile has four tabs--the About tab is where a person can describe herself/himself in their own words, within 11 or fewer sub-categories. The second tab is Photos, which is self-explanatory. The third tab will be either "The Two of Us," or "Y'all Got Issues," depending on whether there is a low or high enemy score between the two people involved. And the fourth tab, "Personality," provides a comparison based on personality traits like being more or less "Compassionate," "Political," or "Adventurous."

Whenever I run into a interesting person with a "Y'all Got Issues" tab, I like to open that up and see how we compare. I've definitely scratched people off my "possible" list for some of the answers that differ from my own. One example was a woman who didn't think men should ever wear earrings. Yawn....

Well today I came across a different "Y'all Got Issues" response that I found amusing. She's currently a 57% Match, 64% Friend, and 37% Enemy--so she's outside my enemy range anyway. But she sounds OK from her profile, and she looks nice enough. But the kicker is that she's a little chubby--which I don't mind at all. I'm a little chubby. But it's the survey question that popped up under "Y'all Got Issues" that inspired me to blog this today. (Her response is the top one; mine is the lower):

If one of your potential matches were overweight, would that be a dealbreaker?

Yes, even if they were slightly overweight.

No. Not a "dealbreaker" deal breaker given the fact that most people tend to put on some weight in their middle years. I'm not a "chubby-chaser," but some fat (yeah, I said it) women wear their weight well. I'm overweight myself, but I'm pretty fit despite that. Being fit and healthy is more important to me than weight. Based on appearance alone I seem more attracted by curvy women trending towards HWP rather than BBW. But there are some hot BBWs out there too!

I suspect that many would view her as at least "slightly" overweight. Yet that would be a deal breaker for her? OK lady, good luck with that!

Actually--I have NOTHING to remark about. She's being "honest" about what she wants. I just wonder what sort of person would allow an otherwise wonderful person slip through their fingers because they were "slightly overweight?" Seems like you'd have to be pretty shallow. 

I mean--if it's a deal breaker for even considering a person, might it not also be grounds for dumping someone? "Sorry honey, you've put on a few pounds since I've been wining and dining you three times a week for the past month. This is goodbye. See ya!"

Yeah--I'm sure I'm making too much of this, but wow.