Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

So you just say no if you're not into someone. If you feel like someone having a profile on a dating app is pressure, then you lack the capacity to date at all.

If you can't be bothered to do your own and you're unhappy with who the existing groups welcome along, then your best bet is to just stay home.

There is a hike for GC women, nobody is interested in being there.

The fact is that spaces that don't include trans women arent attractive to lesbians. So you can have as many as you want, just nobody wants to be there. They'll all be at inclusive events like the hike.

No I cannot see that. Someone being on a dating app isnt pressure to date them.

I hope you're wrong! The idea that anybody sees any similarity between lesbians wanting a bit of a space that was just for them and apartheid is disturbing.

It suggests that there are people out there who haven't a clue what the apartheid regime was really like, and throw the word around in contexts where it is entirely inappropriate.

If you, and the people you refer to in this post, think that 'one space that is reserved for lesbians' is in any way comparable to the experience of Black South Africans under the apartheid regime, you are displaying either contempt or ignorance.

Let's start with the basic fact that apartheid was rather more serious than a group of lesbians socialising together.

History matters. Words matter. The people who lived through apartheid matter.
The true meaning of the word 'apartheid' matters.

Referring to apartheid in the context of lesbians wanting to occasionally socialise together is insulting both to lesbians, and South African history.

With respect, this is not a comparable situation. The near destruction of women's social spaces is not comparable to Mary and John who would quite like the local community centre to start a book club but they don't want to run it themselves.

And the difference is that ALL of these social groups that I am referring to used to be women only. And all the ones set up since gender bollocks, which are TWAW, would have been women only if TWAW gender bollocks had never been invented.

The problem is that the lie of gender bollocks has led to the near destruction of women only spaces. And in many scenes, especially in the alternative sector, even women who may want to put on female only events are probably too scared to as the scene is so prog left dominated.

Having been on the other side of running community groups, I don't think we (or anyone) can complain that someone else hasn't set up a service we happen to want but don't have time to do ourselves.

I always used to say "It's fantastic you want xyz, we always need new volunteers with enthusiasm and new ideas, how do you want to get started?" - Never saw them for dust 😂

What I think is important is that the current climate of normalising women who do want and are able to put the effort into creating women-only social spaces and resources, or even just want to join them, being called "bigots", accused of "disgust" or worse, having their events disrupted or their providers targeted, is called out and rolled back.

Until that climate changes I can't see how the actual appetite among women for genuine woman-only provisions can be known.

I don't think it's a particularly legally grey area - I don't think that this group is governed by the Equality Act at all. They're not AFAICS providing a service, they're not a membership group, and they're definitely not an employer or state body etc.

I suppose it's just about arguable that for the £2 entry fee means that the organisers provide a service (guiding the hike) but IF they wanted to make their hike women only - which they clearly do not - then they would have to get past the threshold of justifying it under paragraph 27 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act. That means justifying that making it women only is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of one of the identified legitimate aims.

That's a very easy argument to make for a rape crisis centre or a changing room but I have huge doubts that it applies to a hiking group, because the sub-para they would need to meet is para 27(4) which is that the service would be less effective if provided to both sexes. Since the other women-only group is demonstrably less popular, that sounds like an argument doomed to fail.

If the group were offering hiking as a form of trauma-informed support for women who had been victims of domestic abuse then that might justify a single-sex service. But for an "informal Instagram event" it seems highly unlikely that it's a service at all, and even more unlikely that they could justify a single sex group, other than under para 30 which is providing services to a group who share a PC. They're not providing it to women but they are, it seems, providing a service to people who have the protected belief of genderism (if they are providing a service at all which as I say I think is a moot point).

I would regard myself as GC but I can't see an issue with this. There are two women leading a group which is flourishing and getting people out in the countryside and making friends? What monsters. If I could get past the phrase "WLW girlies" which sounds like something off a 90s lads mag I'd be tempted to get out there and join them.

I do object to this.

They didn't set up a trans and allies walking group - that would be fair enough - they called it Dykes who Hike. But then admit men.

One of the subtle but most far reaching effects of gender ideology has been the loss of social/ therapeutic/ alternative/ hobby and interest groups which used to be female only but are now not guaranteed to be. People say one man ruins it for everyone, but one man does not even have to turn up. For women who are going to a women only event precisely because it is women only, those women stop going if a man might be there. I know because I am one of those women. And no, not all of us have the time or skills to set up these groups, so we can't just ' do it ourselves.'

There's been a near destruction of organised guaranteed women only social spaces.

Not, legally, on the basis of their beliefs.

Because there is not point having an event for lesbians if men turn up. It might as well just be a walk for anyone.

You have now twice compared women daring to want spaces away from men to apartheid.

If there's any comparison to be made there, it is with black people wanting some black-only spaces in order to escape the relentless pressure of white-dominated society.

Men are not an oppressed demographic in relation to women, however they choose to identify.

There are pretty huge potential detrimental consequences to lesbians who disagree, aren't there? Such as being compared to apartheid apologists by yourself, which if it was an actual real life interaction would be pretty devastating.

For years it has served as a gathering place for women ( and some men too) who want/ed to meeet to discuss the negative impact of trans ideology on women and children, and on same sex attracted people too. This was at a time when discussion was literally forbidden elsewhere. The Labour party was still chanting 'TWAW' and 'No Debate' and there was no coverage in any mainstream media, or debate in parliament. It is often targeted by trans activist who have sought to disrupt or to report women for posting truthfully.

In fact this sub forum was hived off even further at the request of 'intersectionalist' feminists who didn't want to meet and discuss in this way. So 'Feminist chat' was created for people to discuss other types of women's issue. This sub forum has been an incredibly valuable meeting place for people of like mind who reject the totalitarianism of gender ideology. a place to share; discuss; follow court cases; share resources.

Eh? That was to explain to you what heterosexual means... ie your dating pool is exclusively male. Not that it includes all males.
Responding "IF I was bisexual..." is spectacularly missing the point.

Can you at least see that lesbians, being women, are pressured to include transwomen in their dating pool, while gay men are not? The cotton ceiling? Did that all pass you by?

Honestly, the argument is lost when you bring in apartheid. It is such a weak analogy.

As i say they've been inculcated.....but speak to any young female detransitioner she'll tell the familair story of how alternative persepctives are simply not tolerated in the 'queer' community. There is a strong incentive to adhere to the assigned political ideology and talking points lest one be excluded.

Single sex spaces are nothing like apartheid. Apartheid is a sytem in which black people did not have equal civil rights to white people and there was harsh and punitive social restrictions on their actions and whereabouts.

Single sex spaces exist to honour and protect the dignity of female people in situations of vulnerability around their sexed body. This is not a harsh punishment or segregation in the manner of apartheid ( such a lame argument by people who know nothing about the operation of apartheid). Single sex spaces exist when female people are valued, honoured and provided with protections, or provisions, for their dignity and safety. Or to provide female sport with equitable conditions and fair play.

What is the purpose of this forum?

They don't want to know different. They probably see it like segregation. Most white people do not want to experience apartheid like conditions just to see if they'd prefer it.

@13RidgmontRoad

Again, thank you for the respectful, sensitive and interesting post. It's so important to remember there are real people behind the hair splitting and head of a pin dancing, getting on the best they can.

That one dominating man (in sex based language) aside, the group sounds lovely. I just wish they felt able to create the atmosphere they want without adopting such sexist labels for each other, and by implication, everyone else. 😥

I'll disrupt if I choose. It is a an open forum - which is why you are also here - posting against the flow of what most people want, and the overall purpose of the sub forum.

My point is that younger women have grown used to not having true female only venues and spaces as the whole scene has been 'queered'......they know no different. 'Peope who assume trans identities remain male or female. Nobody can change sex. Women who want truly single sex venues and groups now have to do so clandestinely lest the stazi get wind of it.