Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

By creepy men, do you mean trans women?

No by being domineering, obnoxious snd offensive. Such as going to a lesbian bar and getting offended when women hit on them.

I agree. I enjoy both women-only and mixed social groups, but I wouldn’t want a man invading the women’s group. Despite the name, Dykes Who Hike is clearly mixed-sex, and sounds as if it would welcome the sort of creepy men I want to avoid. I hope there are also women-only alternatives? Hiking is a great activity for women to enjoy together.

I think this is a generational thing. Millennials ( those born between around 1981 - 1996) have been inculcated into gender ideology and don't really know what true women only spaces and events are. They have little choice in their social circles. The whole gay scene has been well and truly 'queered'. Lesbians have had to socialise in 'queer spaces' which are mixed sex.

However, we are now starting to see a return to women seeking true women only spaces and events. More and more women only gyms; women only sessions at swimming and in saunas.Male pattern behaviours don't change and with age and experience women realise this and they want and require spaces away from men.

@13RidgmontRoad

Thank you for a really interesting OP about how the dynamics of one supposedly "inclusive" space are working in practice.

Taking at face value the argument made by PPPs (profilific previous posters) that the "Hairy Bikers" model rather than the "Women's Changing Room" model is the one that applies to Dykes Who Hike ("This Hairy Bikers ride is so named because it was set up by two Bikers who were Hairy. You don't have to Hairy to join as long as you are a Biker...."), the part that is relevant to the group makeup isn't "Dykes" but the list of "queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk".

What strikes me in that case is that the intention of this group is actually exclusive. The group they envision is one that excludes so-called "cis" men in favour of those who prefer, to coin a phrase, the Femmer things in life.

As PPP also mentioned, this is very much a pattern. It used to be said out loud more often, but in a lot of supposedly progressive circles "woman" and even "queer" are still being used as a euphemism for "not-Men", where "Men" are constructed as male people who express cultural male norms and not-Men are everyone else. One of the issues I have with the appropriation of female-specific language is that this is so often then leveraged into a reconstruction of Feminism into some sort of "rights and acceptance for all" movement, leaving no poltical space or activism that is focused on the specific needs and moral rights of female people and based in analysis of the specific historic/cultural journey we have taken.

All that said, I absolutely think as long as society is Default-Male and as long as said Default Men take up an unfair share of the space, dialogue and identity of social events, there is a need and should be space for groups that want to engender a non-default-male atmosphere. In a world where Male is default, the not-defaults do have common needs and preferences and maybe ways of interacting that get crowded out.

OP - the list of identities would appear to allow for gay men (queer) - did any happen to choose to join?

Why go through the pretence of calling it a Dyke hike' then?

We both know the reason is to score political points and to insert the idea that some men are also lesbians. If you simply want an 'inclusive' hike, why not name and advertise it clearly?

Lol. You claimed in one of the first of your dozens of posts on here to be GC. What does that mean to you, exactly? Given you're equating a single sex club with apartheid?

And logic on sexual orientation doesn't work. You don't have to include all men in your dating pool to be straight. But you don't exclude anyone because they are male, do you? That's the difference. * *

Lesbian/dyke communities used to be predicated on non hierarchical structures of organisation.

You mean by dancing?

A whites only walking group would be illegal.

Trans women at a trans inclusive event? What did you expect? Join or form a gender critical hiking club and stop making sly digs at women just because they are trans.

Therapy? No. Lexicology? Yes.

This thread is thriving because there's interest in words, particularly those referring to women, being used contrary to their standard meaning, and why people do that.
The discussion has revealed some interesting explanations.

I hope the mixed membership of the group continue to enjoy their hikes.

It would be logical for the name of the group to be descriptive of the actual membership of the group, because words carry meaning, and meaning has to be standardised and shared for communication to work efficiently.
Otherwise anything can mean anything.

No, but they can say (for example) 'this is the Jewish Young Hikers, all food will be kosher, please don't bring your non kosher food along, show respect to our beliefs, don't try and convert anyone by talking about Jesus' or 'this is the Richard Dawkins fan club. We expect all members to be respectful and not turn up and declare that all atheists are going to hell'.

They can choose to exclude someone who chooses to try and make people they want to be present feel unwelcome.

But groups cant legally discriminate on the basis of belief. Any more than they can say 'no Catholics'.

Yeah. I don't really get why this is a big deal. I get why the issue with hospital wards or women's refuges but this is a totally public hobby, with a group that clearly advertise themselves to attract a particular market (which is the wider LGBTQ+ community), there are single sex alternatives available, and the people who are turning up are clearly aware of what they are getting and are happy with it.

It seems like an example of the system working. GC women are not losing out on anything (as there is a single sex option elsewhere) and people who want an inclusive group have theirs. Isn't that good for everyone?

And it says clearly everywhere that they are inclusive of several LGBTQ identities.

But this is apparently not the case here as 130 people (overwhelming majority women);are turning up and the equivalent bio women only group is not attracting the same turn out.

I think anyone going along to a dyke group would think it’s only lesbians. Not that the leaders are lesbians and have invited absolutely everyone including males.

you don’t think it’s misleading for a dyke group to include males? Seems like you’re the one that needs help here.

It's not inclusive of lesbians who are only attracted to other women and don't want to be pressured into dating biological men, however. It excludes exclusively same-sex attracted women.

No, because the organisers are dykes who hike and additionally believe TWAW going by their SM.