"Congrats on being a gay lady now and on finding the right gay lady to spend—fingers crossed—the rest of your gay lady life with!"
I try to avoid getting worked up about bisexual erasure (or pansexual, if that's your jam). Here's an example of how adding one extra word contributes to it, though, when leaving out that unnecessary word would be easy (admittedly missing the oomph of all those "gay lady" repetitions). She's a gay lady and she's going to live the rest of her gay lady life, and that doesn't mean she found the right gay lady to spend it with. Just A lady.

Yay, ballet boys!

*ballet boy

I would agree that Dan's commentary on internet relations was too reductive and dismissive. The guy didn't have nothing. He had something. But, not nearly the amount of knowledge about this person that he seems to be assuming or dreaming.

Congratulations to WHTGP!

I went back and read the very long comment thread that POPDAQ's letter originally inspired.
Wow! Eudaemonic and I in agreement for quite some time and civil to each other throughout; the origin of my "I want to be equal and also privileged" stance that Mr. Ven still refers to; my bolding of the comment thread.
It was a fun, or at least fascinating walk down memory lane. POPDAQ herself, calling herself "rosysunbeam," was a very active participant.

Congrats on your recent engagement POPDAQ/rosysunbeam!

And cheers to you, WHTGP for getting out of a toxic situation.
Happy weekend, all!

I certainly don't feel the trans woman is under a blanket obligation to disclose. Whether it's safer or seems more naturally expedient for her to do so depends on how femme or femme-of-center her appearance is, whether she's non- or pre-op and how she'd like or expect her genitals to be involved in sex, as fully female body-parts. (Thus can be in many ways, according to the discretion, tact and touch of her lover).

I group as a GQ person; and it isn't as possible as I'd like it to be, or as it is in my fantasies, just to go in and be unselfconsciously (or interestingly) gender-indeterminate. In practice there is a dungeon-master who has pretty rigorously prescreened everyone, mostly couples; everyone will know what my sexual proclivities or range is in advance, if they don't already know me. Part of the reason I go is that it isn't a gay bathhouse--there are OS couples there, as well as gay guys, I might be a part of a scene with. (Single women, but it would not be the context for me for that sort of hookup). The basic level of screening is to ensure everyone has the level of familiarity with each other not to be shocked or squicked-out--to be able to decline unwanted overtures with good grace.

BTW nocutename, congrats on being one of Dan's reader round-up comments of the week last week on that LW with the difficult pregnancy / abortion decision! (or should I say, NOH-kew-tah-NAH-may which is how I used to read your screenname, as if it were a pokemon character, for many years till you corrected me once that it was NoCuteName)

Ms Cute - So that's where that first appeared.

As for the update, I'm not sure whether the G word or the L word deserves the lorgnette. The G word has multiple grounds, but the L word has such an annoying Humpty Dumpty quality about it as a self-reference (when unaccompanied by any attempt at establishing a standard).

Well done to you, WHGTP. He was going to contact your Ex? Right.
This SA, is why one keeps one’s kids away from one’s lovers until it’s real and it’s serious.

Thanks for the ballet boy, Dan. Those leg muscles, wow. And the rest.

Ballet boy---oof! Thank you, Dan the Man, for sharing so beautiful a gift.
Hearty congrats, WHGTP, on dumping that toxic POS.

2013: "I'm a 28-year-old woman in a relationship for 3.5 years with a wonderful man, also 28. I hit the jackpot: He is loving, sweet, kind, driven, active, handsome, generous, etc. We're very committed to each other and planning our future together. We've lived together for 2.5 years. Life is so great!"

2019: "I dated a bit, discovered that I am a gay lady, and I'm now engaged to a wonderful WOMAN who is the love of my life! I could not be happier, Dan."

Did POPDAQ not have a good sense about who is going to bring her long-term happiness, or did the former Mr. POPDAQ have a suspicion about POPDAQ's sexuality that caused him to hesitate? In any event, if POPDAQ is now identifying as a lesbian, Mr. POPDAQ probably feels he made the right decision not to get married to POPDAQ.

@10/LavaGirl: "This is why one keeps one’s kids away from one’s lovers until it’s real and it’s serious." I'm not sure how you define "real" or serious," but if things aren't real or serious after a few months of dating, they are never going to be real or serious. That's fine, if that is what the relationship partners want, but if not, it is time to move on. Clearly, WHGTP and her partner thought they were in a serious relationship.

I will add again, if someone hides their children deep into a relationship, that is a red flag. I know someone who was put in that position, and the child being hidden has a life-long developmental problem, the depth of which was only made clear once a serious emotional commitment to the relationship had been made, which I think was way too late.

Anyway, I stick by my thoughts about WHGTP. She definitely should have DTMFA over the UTI and swinger issues, but she needs to reevaluation her attitude towards spending money on her relationship partners.

@13. Sublime. I would also think it peculiar that there's just no inkling in POPDAQ's original letter that she might be gay or bisexual. So she 'discovered' her sexuality in her late twenties or early thirties? My sense has to be that there was something she was hiding either from us or from herself. Of course I'm happy she's in a better situation now.

With WHGTP, she would be better off just shot of her relationship altogether. The demands her relatively new, 'rebound' boyfriend is making are unconscionable.

I feel like most of these DTMFA letters come from people who know they need to DTMFA but just want an outside party to rubber stamp that decision. Lots of commenters inevitably reply, "How can you be so stupid as not to see this?" But they do see it. Women, in particular, seem to want group consensus for decision making. So it's not women being stupid, it's women wanting support for a course of action that will be difficult (MFs rarely take dumping well). Glad WHTGP got the encouragement she needed to DTMF.

On the topic of women who ARE stupid... this one, age 28, doesn't know that women can propose to men, and also doesn't know she's a lesbian? A few more head-desks for this one, oy vey.

Trans woman at a "dungeon play party," I am presuming that what she "should have disclosed" is that she has a penis. Do her genitals enter the scene? If so, I would say disclose; if not, there seems to be no need. Generally I would expect the sort of people who go to dungeon play parties to be far more open minded than the general population, in other words, that most people there would be fine with it. Does she appear trans? I am remembering an outing with a trans partner to a fetish club, where she kept being misgendered because she was presumed to be (perhaps forcibly) cross-dressed by her Domme, like many other attendees. I think in general, the fetish scene is one where people would be unlikely to be shocked by a surprise penis. If someone is clearly expecting a vagina, it might be polite to give them a (ha) heads up, but if it's just BDSM I don't see how the genitalia matters.

Thanks to Dan for running the letter in support of internet-based relationships, no air quotes. It is possible to get to know someone very, very well online -- and she makes a great point that in some ways, people can be more genuinely themselves online than off.

Ankyl @1: Exactly, thank you. Even if POPDAQ is lesbian rather than bi, there's no reason to assume her fiancée is. Bi visibility klaxons and pompoms!

Harriet @7, thanks for your observations. Another approach for this trans woman, presuming she is pre- or non-op, would be to select outfits that make her genitals obvious. If she is post-op, there is nothing for her to disclose.

Delta @8, have you read any Terry Pratchett? In one of his novels there is a character whose surname is Teatime and he spends much of the book insisting it's pronounced Te-ah-TA-may. :)

SA, @13, last word re vacation Man.. obviously they weren’t real or serious in a healthy way.
I didn’t and don’t suggest hiding a child, that’s not the only option. Anyway, these two are finished and our work re this letter is done.

15- BiDan-- One more head-desk for the list. The lady who discovered she was gay after her fantastic boyfriend wouldn't propose had wanted him to propose because her baby-making years were quickly flying away. Now she's happy married to a woman which is great. I just wonder if she knows how the whole babies thing works. She does know her wife isn't going to get her pregnant, doesn't she?

@17 Yes! The Colour of Magic is my favorite. Sadly have not read that many, and not the one you refer to, but love the idea of Te-ah-TA-may! In the late 1980s I went to a reading where he had just left work writing press releases for the British Nuclear Regulatory industry. Funny guy in person, who died all too soon.

Strange to think, when I saw him I was a teenager, and I thought he was ANCIENT, like shopping for retirement homes age. But he must have been late 30s / 40! Younger than I am now... Sigh.

Fichu @19, yes, her baby-making years were flying away at TWENTY-EIGHT. Sheesh. The guy had a lucky escape if you ask me.

Delta @20, I'm envious of your opportunity to see Terry Pratchett in person. Did he already have the grey beard? That might have made a difference to the age he appeared to be. Gone too soon for sure. (The book with Teatime is Hogfather, a cute take on the Christmas story that has been made into a film.)

"Sex party in a dungeon" is a bit confusing, since in my experience oral / vaginal / anal intercourse isn't frequently had in BDSM dungeons. If this scenario is taking place in a sex club, my thought is that anyone putting their cock into a strangers mouth or letting a stranger lick their pussy, isn't concerned about the genitals of the person performing oral sex on them. Conversely, I think when a potential sex partner is going to be interacting with your genitals, and your body will not match their reasonable expectations, then providing some information is warranted, as I don't see any benefit of remaining silent. @Dan suggests that a curious / concerned sex partner should ask about a potential partner's genitals, however, I don't see any formulation of words that I would suggest someone use. I would note that @Dan has also held the view that identifying as a trans-person is not necessary in a dating profile, but I have observed that it is common enough that if it is not standard practice, it is exceedingly common.

Venn @9 I must confess that the very first thought I had, when I read the "gay lady" bit, was "How long will it take for Venn to jump into the comments to object to a. the co-opting by a lesbian (gasp!) of the g word, and b. the temerity of a female to use the L word. By which, of course, I mean lady."

You did not disappoint!

Ms Jibe - It all comes from liking words to mean things. I object just as strongly to calling men masseuses. You couldn't deny that if you tried with both hands, as the Red Queen said to Alice. On the other hand, as I am in search of new terminology, with any luck soon the women will be able to take full custody of the G word once something that can be kept exclusive comes into usage. You may well think I'm petty, but it frosts my cupcakes that we are the only letter in the Alphabet Soup that does not have a clearly recognized exclusive phobia. I spare the assembled company even the bowdlerized version of the MRA jokes at our expence here.

You missed the stronger objection to people's thinking they can round up to K6 all the way from K5, although that's reasonable enough, as I express it less often.

As for the L word, for all I know I might actually agree with LW that she qualifies for it, but it's clearly something that it's much safer to call someone else rather than oneself. A Lady is the crème de la crème of womanhood. The term does not just invite the inference but clearly implies distinction and merit. But what conveys distinction and merit varies so widely from one speaker to another as to muddle the intention of praise. Perhaps, if someone were to call, say, M?? Harriet a lady, one could make a reasonable guess from the praise provider's general remarks on what grounds such praise was being provided. But in a reference to self, that's usually impossible.

We get into interesting waters here, as I suspect it's much easier to agree upon disqualifiers than upon qualifiers. For example, I once heard Mrs Letourneau mentioned as, "...that lady who was a schoolteacher and had an affair with her ten-year-old student." Is there anyone in the assembled company who would argue in good faith that having an affair with her ten-year-old student is something any Lady would do? If memory serves, the last time there was a thread here about Mrs L, there was only one voice among the good women of the assembled company which did not indicate quite clearly that, whatever might make the list of the things one might call her, Lady would not be on that list.

Now, I can recall the first time I got a bit high-horsey about this sort of thing. It actually began with a case of inappropriate use of the G word, when a witness at a trial spoke in an interview of, "...the gentleman who murdered my uncle."

well JibeHo, Mr Venn has nowhere to hide this week, I won’t I say, I won’t read his posts as punishment. Two weeks Mr Venn and if I hear that Caroline Bingley has being used as a whip again, It will be a longer no read. I’m tough like that.

I'd so much rather be Lizzy than Jane (actually, I'd rather be Mary Crawford, but if we're sticking with Bennet sisters, I guess Jane's better than any of the three younger ones). But I can see that I do have a rather naïve characteristic of attributing the best motives to everyone unless and until proven otherwise. It's funny, because I think of myself as cynical, and I think in many ways, I am. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

@21 I think Terry Pratchett had a grey beard but I am not sure I trust my memory. Much of the presentation I was focused on a cute guy sitting next me who I thought was flirting with me / kept touching my leg with his leg, but unfortunately when I asked him out he turned out to be straight and it was just that the chairs were very close together.

BDF @ 21
"The guy had a lucky escape if you ask me." Quite likely. Regardless of gender and preferences there always seems to a most wonderful forever and ever SO.

If you invite someone to dinner, but you are planning to serve something unorthodox (like baked grasshoppers), it would be rude not to give your guest a heads-up. If you offer a friend a ride to the airport, but you are planning to arrive in an unorthodox vehicle (like a motorcycle with a sidecar), it would be rude not to give your passenger a heads-up. If you offer to bottom for someone at a sex party and you have an unorthodox arrangement of sexual orifices (like a penis instead of a vagina), it would be rude not to give your top a heads-up. It's not a matter of trans panic, it's just a matter of courtesy.

Bama Librul:

But you aren't "invited to dinner." You went out to the Buffet of Strange. And it ain't called 'strange' because it's usual.

21- BiDan-- Actually, I don't think age 28 is too young to be thinking about babies or for thinking that the baby making years are quickly flying by, but for that, I need to invent an entirely different person and scenario, something that has nothing to do with the original letter. In this alternate letter, a woman knows from her teen years that she loves kids, wants to be a mother, wants a traditional arrangement with a husband who wants children as much as she does and who will work while she stays home at least until the kids are in school and she returns to work part time. If she wants that-- and there's nothing wrong with wanting that-- she goes about finding it in a very different way, a way that doesn't involve moving in with a man without first finding out the timeline for marriage and children to make sure they're in basic agreement on those things.

The biological clock thing -- I'm not sure. I don't think 28 is too young to be * thinking * about such things, but I certainly don't think it should be a primary reason to get married (especially if you don't know yourself very well, which this LW didn't at the time of the original letter). Need the two even be connected?

I'm 24 and I sometimes think about my fertility. Just to complicate matters: I've never been in a relationship, I may or may not be infertile, and I'm not even sure I want to biologically reproduce. Despite all these things, it's still something I think about.

...

I know I want to be a mother eventually. However, for the last several years, I have said that I don't want to give birth, and therefore would be adopting any child(ren) I have. Lately I've started to think it's possible I could change my mind about that. Part of it may be because I'm a member of a historically persecuted group and I don't want the forces of history to "win" by ending the propagation of my genetic code. Part of it may just be that as I slowly approach 30, certain instincts are kicking in. I don't know. I'm starting to think I might want to biologically reproduce, but I still have no desire to go through the trauma that is pregnancy and childbirth. Ah, to be a male!

The mental debate may all be for naught, though, for, as I mentioned, my fertility is very much in question. If it turns out I'm not infertile, I've started to think about freezing my eggs. I know I don't want to adopt/reproduce until I'm financially able to do so. Given that I'm pursuing a career in either research science or science writing, I foresee it being a very long road to financial stability.

One thing is for sure, though -- my ability to become a mother is not going to be determined by whether or not I find a romantic partner. Given all my social anxiety issues and current never-having-had-a-relationship status, I don't see very good odds of me finding someone with whom to parent.

I currently operate under the assumption that I'm either going to adopt alone or use a sperm bank. Either way, I'll be a single mother. That's another reason I think it will be a long time before I'm financially ready to have a kid.

...

All of that is to say, I think people place too much weight on finding a partner when thinking about parenthood. Sure, having two sources of income makes life easier for a family, but surely that shouldn't be the only consideration?

@32 CalliopeMuse
"Given all my social anxiety issues and current never-having-had-a-relationship status, I don't see very good odds of me finding someone with whom to parent."

Recalling the last time someone said something like that to Dan, I think he might say something like:
In an online dating profile, maybe don't be shy about stating your issues/status? There are plenty of Calliope's just like you in the world for whom you could be the perfect muse. We can't all be everyone's muse, but who has time for /everyone/ anyway?

"...too much weight on finding a partner...having two sources of income makes life easier for a family, but surely that shouldn't be the only consideration?"

It's also quite time-consuming so help would make that easier.

@33 Time and childcare help -- fair enough. What can I say? I'm young and naive -- it's all still hypothetical for me. I've just heard too many stories about women who never had children they desperately wanted because they never found "the right man."

Fichu @31, I don't see how your hypothetical person isn't POPDAQ. If she had this traditional view of a family since her teens and pursued it single-mindedly, she might not have noticed that the man she was dating was merely a prop in this scenario and that the partner she really wanted was female. I don't think 28 is too young to be "thinking" about babies, no, but it's way too young to think that time is running out. Indeed, POPDAQ probably comes from a small-town, conservative community where 28 -is- an old maid. But that just wants to make me slap not just her, but everyone around her with the clue stick. Or perhaps it's mainly that, having two decades on POPDAQ, I have little patience for young kids who whine about their age. :)

@22. Sublime. In the case of the transwoman, I would see nothing more than an ordinary misunderstanding should a straight male lover clock her dick and decide having sex with her isn't for him. (This supposes a play party). She's at a sex party, for heaven's sake, and one she's found because, presumably, it has compatible partners--people she's both excited by and excites. She should be able to find some other partner or scene.

A related point is that I feel it doesn't do to be too precious in answering questions about what genitals you have from prospective lovers. A transwoman or GQ person, in most cases, is much less emotionally attached to their junk than a cisguy. I'd say, talking of myself, that it's there 'such as it is' or that gets stiff 'but not that you'd notice', without any skin off my nose, if I thought the remarks would go down well or put someone in a frame of mind where they'd 'go for it' and fuck me. But there are in fact very few conversations of this kind: my demeanor is such that it's evident I won't be topping anyone, and the draw is just not going to be my dick, in any shape or form. Dan's caller will know, as we don't, how easily she could be taken for an anatomical ciswoman--and also how much she wants to be--and this will affect how she indicates or discloses.

@29. Bama. It depends on how great the order of surprise is--'baked grasshopper!' surprise or 'I was wondering...' surprise.

@32. Calliope. Well--why not give yourself options and freeze your eggs now, at 24?

@38 I am considering that. There are financial considerations, of course. I also have yet to go through the tests to determine whether my ovaries are too fucked up to support life.

Venn @24 - I'm perplexed by your objection to gay ladies(!) like myself using the G word. If you were a gay lady(!), like myself, I'm pretty sure you'd loathe the sound of OUR exclusive L word (Lesbian) as much as I do. Gay is much less ugly (and it rhymes with tons of other words!) and I like it, so I use it. Plenty of my L friends prefer it as well, and it never occurred to any of us that our use of the word was some sort of Gay Man Erasure.

As for the other L word - Lady. Of course we all know what the traditional meaning of that word is. And as you are well aware and all too happy to point out, there is a value judgement implicit in it. I reject the validity and appropriateness of that judgement. Just as queers have reclaimed their moniker, and other marginalized groups have reclaimed historic slurs for their own, so too have some of us "ladies".

That it is integral to your worldview that women and their actions must always be judged with as little generosity as possible, I'll concede that I am wasting my time even typing this.

I will forever be baffled by your particular world view. We are both homosexuals, but you insist that gay men leave the "alphabet soup" to us the lesbians and the rest. Why cleave yourself from lesbians? I can only surmise that it's our gender - which I see at the very root of every single one of your posts in these comment threads.

SA, my last thought on yours and others’ assertions that the higher earners pay more for holidays ....
There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
You might be great men who show generosity without strings. Lots don’t. Especially at break up time, when the tallies are being done.
‘And I gave that woman nearly free holidays.’

@39. Calliope. Well, I hope your ovaries are fertile, so you have the option of children. Unless, of course, you really don't want a child--in which case there might be a relief in having the choice taken out your hands.

Parents tell me they love kids they adopt exactly the same as the kids they give birth to.

Harriet/ Calliope re: "why not give yourself options and freeze your eggs now, at 24?"

When I investigated this 10 years ago, when I was about to undergo a fertility-reducing medical treatment, freezing ~unfertilised~ eggs had a pretty low success rate of subsequent fertilisation. So much so that my docs said they wouldn't recommend this route for female chemo patients of childbearing age, whereas they would always advise a male patient in the same circumstances to freeze sperm. The odds of growing a baby from a frozen embryo (fertilised egg) were considerably better, but that meant either taking that step with your current partner, or going the sperm donor route. Which can be a difficult decision to make, if you are already feeling ambivalent about the prospect of reproducing.

Of course, medicine may have sufficiently advanced in the last 10 years to make freezing unfertilised eggs a viable option - I just don't know.

@44 Thank you. This is good information to keep in mind. The whole thing is still speculative, so I'll just file that away in my brain for later pondering.

I hope everything worked out okay for you!

@44. Lost Margarita. Was this advice for any female chemo patient or more limited to people who had received topical chemo for e.g. ovarian cancer?

Harriet @47, mine was Hodgkin's lymphoma, so nothing to do with ovarian or any other cancer affecting the reproductive organs. To clarify, the advice wasn't for patients already ~in~ chemo, but rather those about to undergo chemo. Freezing sperm was a no-brainer, if there was any chance the man may want to have bio kids in the future. Freezing unfertilised eggs wasn't routinely advised due to a combination of time (read: treatment delay), cost, and poor baby-making performance.

Calliope @45, yes, it's good to do some pondering and general research to know what exactly the options are, even if you're not sure how you feel about any of them. FWIW, I was exactly your age when I got my lymphoma diagnosis and had to do some quick thinking on the matter. I then had a relapse at 26 and needed more serious chemo, so the topic came up again. Both times I decided against freezing for various reasons - new relationship, ambivalent feelings towards procreation, not wanting to delay treatment, etc. Tbh, it all seemed a bit abstract and unreal back then, and my priorities were different. If I could see into the future and knew then what I know now, I probably would have chosen differently and done some embryo freezing via donor sperm. But that's just me - definitely not implying that you'd feel the same! And thanks for @46, it all turned out alright as far as my health is concerned :)