Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

You know its possible to discuss these issues, and even disagree, without this relentless unpleasantness?

Incredibly, we didn’t spend the whole time looking into each other’s jorts or talking about gender identity. As the person who was there, we were clearly female majority. Like most, including you I’ll wager, I can tell male from female.

Once again - in the real world, very few people “pass”. Your argument seems to be that there may have been 127 other TW (or TM?) there that I didn’t notice. After being in many, many spaces with a fair share of gender fuckery built-in, I’m here to tell you that most people don’t pass. The real world isn’t a subReddit with flattering angles and affirming replies. And women in particular have a very good eye for spotting men - it comes from self-preservation.

More importantly - passing isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is, though it’s interesting that that’s where you’ve gone. A man who “passes” brilliantly? Still a man. If he chooses to turn up to an event marketed at lesbians, that is a sign of mental ill health or overzealous entitlement, not a reason to be kind and include him.

You've read too much Pink News, your brain has turned to mush.

It is. But of course if you are prone to the no true scotsman fallacy, you'll only accept research that agrees with you and anything else you will reject.

Waiting for "buh dasss not weel wesearches"

Well it can be single sex but the organisers don't wish it to be. So surely if you want it to be single sex then you don't go?

Oh don't spoil it! It was meant to be a great big gotcha!

Anyway, we have seen the You Gov polling before. It refers to transgender people, not 'transwomen' specifically. I would imagine that many lesbians are very sympathetic to trans-identified females ('transmen'), as are many GC women.

It is. But of course if you are prone to the no true scotsman fallacy, you'll only accept research that agrees with you and anything else you will reject.

Why post it if it's not real research?

Waiting for "buh dasss not weel wesearches"

Waiting for "buh dasss not weel wesearches"

Waiting for "buh dasss not weel wesearches"

Lots of misunderstanding of the law on this thread. It absolutely is legal to set up a group for people from multiple protected characteristics (so you can have a combo of sex, gender reassignment and sexuality). You are free to call the group whatever you want as long as the membership criteria is clear elsewhere.

There was a really informative thread on here about it and how it related to girl guides policies. Take a look at this guidance: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2026/EHRC_Code_of_practice_for_services_public_functions_and_associations.pdf

Specifically 12.75 which says:

An association may therefore restrict membership to people who: (a) share one protected characteristic (for example women) (b) share more than one protected characteristic (for example Muslim women) (c) have any of more than one protected characteristic (for example lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people).

And an example of naming here

12.67 The constitution of an association called the Black Jazz Players Club states that all members must have national origins in Africa or the Caribbean. Despite the use of ‘Black’ in its name, because the restrictions on membership of the association are based on national origins and not colour, these restrictions would not be unlawful.

Lots of misunderstanding of the law on this thread. It absolutely is legal to set up a group for people from multiple protected characteristics (so you can have a combo of sex, gender reassignment and sexuality). You are free to call the group whatever you want as long as the membership criteria is clear elsewhere.

There was a really informative thread on here about it and how it related to girl guides policies. Take a look at this guidance: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2026/EHRC_Code_of_practice_for_services_public_functions_and_associations.pdf

Specifically 12.75 which says:

An association may therefore restrict membership to people who: (a) share one protected characteristic (for example women) (b) share more than one protected characteristic (for example Muslim women) (c) have any of more than one protected characteristic (for example lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people).

And an example of naming here

12.67 The constitution of an association called the Black Jazz Players Club states that all members must have national origins in Africa or the Caribbean. Despite the use of ‘Black’ in its name, because the restrictions on membership of the association are based on national origins and not colour, these restrictions would not be unlawful.

It sounds more like an association to me, not a service. Perfectly legal to set up an association for one or more protected characteristics eg female homosexuals.

You referred to stats, can you link to them?

I tell you what we can use to poll... the GC hiking group. How many people were at their last hike vs the inclusive hike?

I tell you what we can use to poll... the GC hiking group. How many people were at their last hike vs the inclusive hike?

That isn't the same as what you said, which was Lesbians on the whole arent into excluding trans women from their spaces.
Either way, do you have some polling data?