Not once have I encountered a trans person on a dating app who wasn’t 100% transparent about it. Some even asked me after matching, “you’re aware that I’m trans, right?” just to be sure.
There’s no logical reason to falsely pretend to be cis on a dating app to get matches. If someone’s cool about it then it’s better to know up front, right? And if they’re not, then you probably don’t want to waste your time on them.
The “justification” for this app is just bigotry, plain and simple. Fuck TERFs.
The technology that excludes transwomen from the app is the clear warning that the app is populated exclusively for transphobes. It’s obviously wildly dangerous for a transwoman to be on the app.
The notion that AI is going to clock them is absurd AI hype. There’s no reason to expect AI to be capable of this kind of discernment, and that assumes you even had a training set. Where in the absolute fuck would someone find a training set like that?
Edit: I didn’t read the article. It seems it’s a lesbian dating app. Well, probably less dangerous for transwomen, but still not technically sound.
We sometimes have to clarify that LGBT+ folk aren’t particularly virtuous, just people, and like the rest of the population suffers from its own share of internal bigotry. The lesbian community is no exception.
Lesbians range from really rather bisexual to staunchly misandrist and there are different gatekeeping checkpoints, where some don’t count trans women as lesbians to others that don’t want to date a woman who’s ever been with a man (which makes for a really small dating pool).
But this kind of exclusion is not about who these women date, rather who they allow into their community and are allowed to come to their potlucks and tea parties. Generally communities that are progressive and have experienced external oppression and dehumanization are glad to be welcoming and inclusive. Mostly. And I think this includes the lesbian community.
From my experience. I’ll get to how that’s tricky.
I’ve found the lesbian circles I’ve engaged with have been even more inclusive than the general LGBT+ community. They’re actually really good about including bisexuals and trans women that are into women. However, this is partly due to the anthropic principle: Even though I’m enby I still have [M] on my state ID, look like a dude and have male parts, and have been completely forthright about this even in online circles (e.g. r/actuallesbians) where no-one would ever know I was really a cat. But this means that I don’t get invites to circles that are more restrictive, since I’d be high on the no-admittance list.
But inclusive lesbians are not super fond of less inclusive ones, especially since human sexuality can change over time. The closet has multiple doors, and when your best friend who invites you to all the get-togethers is a women-only transphobe second-wave feminist (this was a thing), and suddenly you’ve been taking an interest in a special guy, you’re going to keep your bi-curiosity hidden from your friend (or stop being friends). And as per the whole thing of coming out, the point of the LGBT+ community is being able to be who you are, and being accepted and validated.
So when I see a lesbians dating app that is intentionally looking to draw transphobes, it reminds me of those conservative dating apps to hook up men in the white power movement with trad-wife minded women, which is to say it’s good they’re over there and not trying to date people over here that they’re ultimately going to disappoint and hurt.
Good point. I don’t want to date trans people, but I wouldn’t want to use an app that purposely excluded them. I’d rather occasionally have to go “oh sorry thanks for telling me” than restrict my dating pool to bigots.
Why do you guarantee that? It seems obviously wrong, on a technical level.
The point I’m making is that even if we take it as a given that a shrewd enough AI could correctly distinguish sex at birth – which I think is obviously impossible based on the appearances of many ciswomen and the nature of statistical prediction – you’d still need a training data set.
If the dataset has any erroneous input, that corrupts its ability, and the whole point of this exercise is trying to find passing transwomen. Why would anyone expect that training set of hundreds of thousands of supposed cis women wouldn’t have a few transwomen in it?
Because Facebook’s data practices, and how much was volunteered by users on there, means that for some percentage of trans users Facebook knows that they’re trans. And you also have a percentage of pregnancy photos uploaded, if someone identifies as a woman on Facebook, and has uploaded photos with a baby bump, she’s cis (or at least a pre-hatching trans person). And at one point in time, a lot of people just volunteered that info to Facebook.
I mean, isn’t that also just true of anyone you’ve interacted with? Their point was that they never “found out” someone they were dating on there was trans, and everyone that dated from those apps who oc every discovered were trans were straightforward about it.
Why would you need or want to be that precise about your language?
oh geez, thank you for explaining someone else’s point, you must be quite an insider into their thoughts 😂
was that they never “found out”
that is not what was said
why would you need or want to be that precise about your language
you need to be precise with your language because that is what allows us to communicate ideas to each other and logic through arguments, eventually accepting or refuting them.
for example you can call these two strawberry, and nuclear submarine, but it is going to seriously hinder your communication with others, because that is now what is commonly understood under these terms.
you can see it in the comment we are discussing. because i read the implication original commenter tried to make as it never happened to me => it is not a problem that needs to be addressed.
which is incorrect implication in itself, but more importantly, as i pointed out, the premise of the implication is flawed.
It’s absolutely happened to me. I also don’t understand. Maybe the reasoning is, if they get me to invest enough time then maybe I’ll suddenly be sexually attracted to penises? I don’t know.
Having known multiple trans people and heard them talk about the arguments for and against early disclosure: Fear.
They may not be public about their status, and fear exposure to family or coworkers seeing their public profile.
They may fear harassment from transphobes. This could range from DM accusations of pedophilia to religious screeds to doxxing to death threats.
They may be trying to avoid “chasers.” There are some people for whom a trans body (particularly a transfem body) is a fetish, who don’t actually care about the person inside. Plenty of transpeople don’t appreciate that kind of attention.
Fear of rejection. They may believe that nobody will respond if they’re open about not being cis.
Also two less fear-related (and less common) possibilities:
Ideology. To some people, specifying “transman” or “transwoman” reinforces a social distinction they find invalidating or don’t accept. How many profiles have you seen that specify themselves as “cisman” or “ciswoman”? For these people, it’s a way of rejecting cisgender normativity.
Maybe they just aren’t ready to talk about their genitals yet, or have their first conversation be about their surgical plans or history. Not only can get really repetitive having that be the first conversation with every single match, it means they don’t get any of the information they’re looking for about a potential partner until much later in the process and have to invest a lot of their own time up front. Just like you want the salient information you care about early on, so do they.
Not once have I encountered a trans person on a dating app who wasn’t 100% transparent about it. Some even asked me after matching, “you’re aware that I’m trans, right?” just to be sure.
There’s no logical reason to falsely pretend to be cis on a dating app to get matches. If someone’s cool about it then it’s better to know up front, right? And if they’re not, then you probably don’t want to waste your time on them.
The “justification” for this app is just bigotry, plain and simple. Fuck TERFs.
This is a great point.
The technology that excludes transwomen from the app is the clear warning that the app is populated exclusively for transphobes. It’s obviously wildly dangerous for a transwoman to be on the app.
The notion that AI is going to clock them is absurd AI hype. There’s no reason to expect AI to be capable of this kind of discernment, and that assumes you even had a training set. Where in the absolute fuck would someone find a training set like that?
Edit: I didn’t read the article. It seems it’s a lesbian dating app. Well, probably less dangerous for transwomen, but still not technically sound.
We sometimes have to clarify that LGBT+ folk aren’t particularly virtuous, just people, and like the rest of the population suffers from its own share of internal bigotry. The lesbian community is no exception.
Lesbians range from really rather bisexual to staunchly misandrist and there are different gatekeeping checkpoints, where some don’t count trans women as lesbians to others that don’t want to date a woman who’s ever been with a man (which makes for a really small dating pool).
But this kind of exclusion is not about who these women date, rather who they allow into their community and are allowed to come to their potlucks and tea parties. Generally communities that are progressive and have experienced external oppression and dehumanization are glad to be welcoming and inclusive. Mostly. And I think this includes the lesbian community.
From my experience. I’ll get to how that’s tricky.
I’ve found the lesbian circles I’ve engaged with have been even more inclusive than the general LGBT+ community. They’re actually really good about including bisexuals and trans women that are into women. However, this is partly due to the anthropic principle: Even though I’m enby I still have [M] on my state ID, look like a dude and have male parts, and have been completely forthright about this even in online circles (e.g. r/actuallesbians) where no-one would ever know I was really a cat. But this means that I don’t get invites to circles that are more restrictive, since I’d be high on the no-admittance list.
But inclusive lesbians are not super fond of less inclusive ones, especially since human sexuality can change over time. The closet has multiple doors, and when your best friend who invites you to all the get-togethers is a women-only transphobe second-wave feminist (this was a thing), and suddenly you’ve been taking an interest in a special guy, you’re going to keep your bi-curiosity hidden from your friend (or stop being friends). And as per the whole thing of coming out, the point of the LGBT+ community is being able to be who you are, and being accepted and validated.
So when I see a lesbians dating app that is intentionally looking to draw transphobes, it reminds me of those conservative dating apps to hook up men in the white power movement with trad-wife minded women, which is to say it’s good they’re over there and not trying to date people over here that they’re ultimately going to disappoint and hurt.
I’ve been excluded more often for being bi than being trans in lesbian circles.
Good point. I don’t want to date trans people, but I wouldn’t want to use an app that purposely excluded them. I’d rather occasionally have to go “oh sorry thanks for telling me” than restrict my dating pool to bigots.
I guarantee you that Facebook could build one.
Facebook couldn’t build a model that has 100% accuracy on if something is a dog or a cat, let alone if a woman is trans.
Especially since you oftentimes can’t tell at all from just a picture. There’s cis woman that look more like a man than some trans women.
Why do you guarantee that? It seems obviously wrong, on a technical level.
The point I’m making is that even if we take it as a given that a shrewd enough AI could correctly distinguish sex at birth – which I think is obviously impossible based on the appearances of many ciswomen and the nature of statistical prediction – you’d still need a training data set.
If the dataset has any erroneous input, that corrupts its ability, and the whole point of this exercise is trying to find passing transwomen. Why would anyone expect that training set of hundreds of thousands of supposed cis women wouldn’t have a few transwomen in it?
Because Facebook’s data practices, and how much was volunteered by users on there, means that for some percentage of trans users Facebook knows that they’re trans. And you also have a percentage of pregnancy photos uploaded, if someone identifies as a woman on Facebook, and has uploaded photos with a baby bump, she’s cis (or at least a pre-hatching trans person). And at one point in time, a lot of people just volunteered that info to Facebook.
Yeah, but the training set is nowhere near clean. That’s my point. “Close” is no where near good enough within this context,
…that you know of. not defending bigots or bullying, but that statement doesn’t make sense.
I mean, isn’t that also just true of anyone you’ve interacted with? Their point was that they never “found out” someone they were dating on there was trans, and everyone that dated from those apps who oc every discovered were trans were straightforward about it.
Why would you need or want to be that precise about your language?
oh geez, thank you for explaining someone else’s point, you must be quite an insider into their thoughts 😂
that is not what was said
you need to be precise with your language because that is what allows us to communicate ideas to each other and logic through arguments, eventually accepting or refuting them.
for example you can call these two strawberry, and nuclear submarine, but it is going to seriously hinder your communication with others, because that is now what is commonly understood under these terms.
you can see it in the comment we are discussing. because i read the implication original commenter tried to make as it never happened to me => it is not a problem that needs to be addressed.
which is incorrect implication in itself, but more importantly, as i pointed out, the premise of the implication is flawed.
It’s absolutely happened to me. I also don’t understand. Maybe the reasoning is, if they get me to invest enough time then maybe I’ll suddenly be sexually attracted to penises? I don’t know.
Having known multiple trans people and heard them talk about the arguments for and against early disclosure: Fear.
They may not be public about their status, and fear exposure to family or coworkers seeing their public profile.
They may fear harassment from transphobes. This could range from DM accusations of pedophilia to religious screeds to doxxing to death threats.
They may be trying to avoid “chasers.” There are some people for whom a trans body (particularly a transfem body) is a fetish, who don’t actually care about the person inside. Plenty of transpeople don’t appreciate that kind of attention.
Fear of rejection. They may believe that nobody will respond if they’re open about not being cis.
Also two less fear-related (and less common) possibilities:
Ideology. To some people, specifying “transman” or “transwoman” reinforces a social distinction they find invalidating or don’t accept. How many profiles have you seen that specify themselves as “cisman” or “ciswoman”? For these people, it’s a way of rejecting cisgender normativity.
Maybe they just aren’t ready to talk about their genitals yet, or have their first conversation be about their surgical plans or history. Not only can get really repetitive having that be the first conversation with every single match, it means they don’t get any of the information they’re looking for about a potential partner until much later in the process and have to invest a lot of their own time up front. Just like you want the salient information you care about early on, so do they.
If you’re not openly trans, then you really shouldn’t be dating online because that’s a risk.
My sister was open about it and she got creepy Neo Nazis looking for Russian girlfriends.