Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

It isn't an LGBT group because it doesn't include gay or bisexual men...well unless they claim to be a woman.

It also is debatable how much it's a transgender group as afaik they don't require any evidence.

I was making a general point about the importance of women's groups and why some women want a single sex environment.

I'm not a lesbian so obviously I wouldn't be joining either of those discussed. There will be lesbians in a similar position to me though.

When I last looked into this I couldn't find any appropriate womens only groups in my area.

I would also be extremely concerned about these being targeted by protestors, if they restricted their entry to biological women as even women's only rape crisis centres have been targeted.

It looks like they have done enough to keep the queer-police at bay but are managing to signal that they are really a lesbian group by using the word Dyke. My thoughts are actually to leave them alone to get on with it.

Is being "popular" the key test or actually having a women's event for only women - as the law seems to require?

Everyone seems to be assuming they are trans too despite not appearing to have made any changes and presenting as men wearing dresses...in a lesbian group. Huh.

Having worked in a lingerie shop I'm well aware there are men who get a sexual thrill from wearing women's clothing. Look up autogynephilia.

I am willing to bet there's been some of those.

I don't support any women's group having a policy of accepting trans woman. But if they do at least ask for a gender recognition certificate.

It's perfectly accurate because it has got them the membership they desire. They're perfectly happy with their group from the looks of things.

No, their branding is way off - they used a word in their marketing which is misleading as to composition - but don't worry, I'm not going to suggest the Trade Description Act 1968 applies
I'm just going to point out that if their group is not composed of dykes, maybe they should call it something else.

Accuracy in marketing is important, and (unless you are a talking egg in Alice in Wonderland) words, like 'dykes' or 'hiking', don't mean what random individuals decide they mean.

Seems to be branded well as it is relatively popular with the people who want to attend. Seems like they marketed just right.

Massive branding fail to call the group Dykes Who Hike, with a subheader saying, no, actually, not Dykes but a free for all for LGBTQ+ 'folk' (to add that lovely little touch of twee).

More accurate to call it Humans Who Hike. Or maybe Folks With Legs. Both of which would exclude the + brigade who might identify as faeries or mermen. Very tricky.

Because this group has said it is inclusive. Their group. Their rules.
The other smaller group is not including trans women. If the OP joined that one to find the rule was not properly applied, fair enough to reflect.
But to reflect on a group doing what it says it will do. That is odd. Not all lesbians are GC, not all are trans exclusionary.
And if critics of the inclusive group are straight anyway, which GC lesbians are you fighting for? Have they asked you to? Cos in this case, clearly, they can literally vote with their feet.

Yes they hike as the OP detailed.

OK, so we've established that 'Dykes Who Hike' are not necessarily dykes at all. In fact not necessarily female at all, the word 'Dyke' is being used as a portmanteau word to mean anybody.

So what about the other part of the name of the group? The 'hiking' bit? do they actually hike, or is that just a portmanteau word that covers roll-blading, bike-riding, and parkour?

Does 'Dykes Who Hike' mean 'Anybody Who Does Anything'?

Indeed. And that is the crux of the issue. The group is called "Dykes". It is therefore up to the organisers who they wish to include.

If the group was called Women - then it would have to be women.
If the group was called Lesbians - I don't know.

I can understand the frustration among GC lesbians but in this case they don't seem to have a case - which is why terminology matters and you can't just say - that's what the organisers decided, or that's what the majority want.

Did I say that?

But it isnt because it is openly inclusive of trans people.

That was a reference to your previous comment that this 'isn't a group for GC people like you'.

The law doesnt say anything about dykes except perhaps that it is a discriminatory term that some have reclaimed.

Hiking Dykes have been going decades longer. The inclusive group is a few years old. I find it surreal that you suggest TRA interference on a thread about a GC person joining an openly trans inclusive group. Surely it goes both ways - unless of course hypocrisy is the order of the day?

Or just that nobody wants to go, like a whites only walking group probably wouldn't get many attendees of any ethnic background.

Because the law may say it should be. I don't know if the law does though.

The law says women should be biological women only.
What does the law say lesbians are?
What does the law say dykes are?

They can certainly exclude anyone who makes members they welcome feel oppressed, marginalised or outright attacked. Of course if you dont share your views and just hike like everyone else, nobody will know you are GC. It will be when you start trying to coerce the organisers into expelling trans women that you are thrown out yourself.

The rules are that the group is a Walking group based in LDN for queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk. Clearly stated.

They haven't excluded GC people. The OP is literally an active member.

Why is it bizarre to want to see laws and rules properly applied?

I find it bizarre that some people seem to think it doesn't matter.

There could be many reasons by the Hiking Dykes (excluding transwomen) has lower numbers - more recently set up, no publicity (perhaps deliberately to avoid TRA interference), fewer hikes, other different parameters, etc

They can't exclude GC people though - that would be illegal discrimination on the grounds of belief.

I think the point thatis repeatedly going over some rather aggressive posters heads is 'what are the rules'?

And why does there seem to be one set of rules for some people (randomly excluding certain people but not others) and not for others (women who want single sex spaces, which yes, we understand doesn't involve hiking trails, we are more discussing the general principle).

What are the rules and why do some people get to form exclusive groups but others don't?

This 'inclusive' group is not inclusive of everyone. Or is it? Again, what are the rules?

It's an explicitly inclusive group and there is no requirement for it to be single sex. There is also a (significantly less well-attended) single sex hiking group that has existed long before this one if you wish to join that one. But going into an explicitly inclusive group and demanding they change? That is outrageous. Once again though - it's a hiking group! A hiking group!

I think it was always called as it is now. Why should the group be single sex if the organisers want it to be inclusive of people who identify with the term "dyke"?