Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

They don’t though, when it comes down to it

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans folks from their dating pool: only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender. But most non-heterosexuals weren’t down for dating a trans person either, with only 11.5% of gay men and 29% of lesbians being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences. Bisexual/queer/nonbinary participants (these were all combined into one group) were most open to having a trans partner, but even among them, almost half (48%) did not select either ‘trans man’ or ‘trans woman.’

There is nothing about lesbians in here. The study simply seems to show that most 'cis' women recruited (and if they recruited by asking for 'cis' women then they have already skeewed their data) consider themselves to be more inclusive than the average 'cis' women. In the same vein as most drivers consider themselves to be better-than-average drivers. Plus some very creative accounting in Study 4 to alter the pie chart 😳

Of course its possible to have a woman only group of any size. Just as its possible to have a LGBT group, like this.

This is an LGBTQ group, they just call it dykes to limit the number of men, but i bet they dont turn anyone away.

Why couldn’t they provide a women only service? It would be perfectly reasonable for safety reasons etc to provide a woman only hike in the same way women only bike rides are provided.

I think it could be considered a service to facilitate meeting others.

Just because its not a difficult walk, doesnt mean its not a service. They obviously have a route planned.

They are providing guided hikes for a fee and have admission rules.

If 120 attend, that isnt a small informal group. Its nothing like 5 besties going on a walk.

I did have a think in a post earlier about whether it could conceivably be considered a "service".

That would be defined by s.31(2) - "A reference to the provision of a service includes a reference to the provision of goods or facilities"

Self-evidently they're not providing goods. Facilities? No. Admittedly services "include" goods or facilities and are not restricted to those, but is this seriously the provision of a service? Maybe, maybe, guiding a hike would count - but to be entirely honest I think this is too great a stretch. The £2 doesn't buy you expert advice on technical hiking, or a broom-wagon to help the stragglers, or anything of that nature, it looks much more like a nominal charge to ensure that people who say they're coming actually turn up. If you professionally guide people up Ben Nevis you might be said to be providing a service but if you have a hobby and encourage others to join you I don't think that could conceivably count.

Even if they were providing a service - which I don't think that they are - it would have to be mixed sex unless they could justify a women-only provision under paragraph 27 to Schedule 3, which they can't.

Given that they havd queer as a included group, they aren't turning anyone away.

The test would be if they excluded anyone.

It’s not small though. It’s 130 people and they’re charging a fee. Does that not then fall under providing a service and therefore subject to the equality act?

Nope. The requirements to be an association under the Equality Act is that you have at least 25 members AND there is an application process (admission to membership) AND it is regulated by rules AND it involves a process of selection. Section 107(2) Equality Act if you are interested. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/107

OP if I had seen it I wouldn’t have attended, the alphabet soup that comes up after a quick Google would make it a hard no from me. I would find it very hard not to take issue with a man in a dress believing he is a woman when it would be plain for all to see that he is indulging a fetish that requires the handmaidens to fawn about how brave he is.

Hiking dykes states it is a hiking group for lesbians and clarifies that to be ‘same sex attracted we welcome same sex attracted women who are biologically female’ seems infinitely preferable to the other group in my opinion.

Actually no as the group is over 25 members then they are subject to the equality act.

"when the law is quite clear on what that should mean"

This is a small informal hiking group and it is not subject to the Equality Act.

There is a growing perception among GC people that every time someone utters the word "woman" or "lesbian" the Equality Act pops up like the Microsoft paperclip and gets involved, and this is damaging (albeit not as damaging as the belief amongst genderists that where the Equality Act does get involved this is somehow equivalent to a genocide.)

If I go for a walk and to the pub with six friends and I describe this as a women's hike then it doesn't matter whether I am right or wrong about this. I might be walking with two men, two women, a German Shepherd and a Shetland pony. If I say on Instagram that people are welcome to join my women's hike and that it is open to men, women, German Shepherds and Shetland ponies, then there is no legal effect.

If I run an NHS ward, a disabled women's guild, a homeless shelter, a factory full of employees or a swimming pool, then it DOES matter because these are services, employers or associations which ARE subject to the Equality Act. The definition of "woman" or "lesbian" matters hugely in these circumstances, which is what the SC case was about, but individual private citizens are welcome to be wrong on social media to their hearts' content.

Does this data show that:
Lesbians on the whole arent into excluding trans women from their spaces. ?
If so, it is good form for the poster to point out where in the research this is to be found.

This is irrelevant.

You are repeatedly trying to assert that because you don't like them and (appeal to authority) neither do your mates and look a bit of research that says some other women don't want them either, women who do want them should be denied single sex spaces.

And that we shouldn't be upset about the drive to remove these spaces/protections/words (like dyke) from women, nor should we discuss this phenomenon.

(At least, this is what you appear to be arguing. I'm trying to steel man your arguments as your posts aren't particularly clear).

It doesn't matter what proportion of women support single sex spaces/services, in the uk it is legal to provide them.

The vast majority of lesbians accept that TWAW, and therefore can be lesbians. GC people don't. If that upsets you, form your own group. Because there are so few GC lesbians, there are close to zero GC lesbian events, but there are surely enough.

Then, I’d personally leave them all to it. None of my business if a group of individuals choses to be trans inclusive and conduct their meetings this way, unless I wanted to join and it being ‘women only’ was a deal breaker. In the latter case I’d just find another group?

Thanks for posting the research. I don't have time to read it now as I have to make our tea, but will read with interest later.

They were. The OP decided to turn up anyway to "observe" the members

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-025-01610-5

Across five studies (N = 1159) conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom, we assessed the similarity between cisgender women’s own beliefs and their perceptions of the group norm (i.e., other cisgender women) regarding the inclusion of transgender women within the boundaries of womanhood. We found robust evidence that cisgender women in our sample underestimated the level of support for inclusion of trans women among their group relative to their own beliefs.

Unless the organisers were explicit that it was a women-only group in their formation and advertising, I guess this might be considered an inclusive and non-single sex group, even if there were attendees who assumed [as I personally would] that ‘dykes’ are female-attracted, natal females. As it involves walks/hikes in public spaces, and so long as all members were happy with the inclusive nature, I guess it’s possibly not a big deal in the scheme of things.

Obviously there will have been women expecting a women-only social network who may not return to future events and who will now have to form their own exclusively single-sexed hiking group - but it is insanity that they now need to clarify before joining these sorts of events/groups what the organisers’ definition of ‘lesbian’ is, when the law is quite clear on what that should mean, though.

Worded as:
Waiting for "buh dasss not weel wesearches"

You assumed that I wouldn't accept your research, which was rude. However, I am happy to accept it. It just doesn't show what you said it did.

I said im waiting for you all to reject the reasearch because it disagrees with you.

What is unpleasant about that post? I thought you were all for robust challenges. I referred to the no true scotsman fallacy. That's literally debate club 101.