Wild Wanders (hiking group) Women only (but transwomen allowed)

[OMalleyTheAlleyKit]

Does anyone else find stuff like this so frustrating?

A women's group, made for women to hike together because obviously its not safe to meet up with random men to go hiking in a remote area.

But someone asks if it's trans inclusive and of course it is! Because TWAW!

I mean what is the point of making a group for women to be safe with each other if you allow biological men to attend?

@MishyJDI

Lols. Makes me laugh. No guy is going to throw on a frock to join a group of women on a walk in the wilderness. Fearmongering rating 10.

If there is a legitimate purpose per the equality act then transwomen can be excluded...but not based on fearmongering....needs to be real threats, not made up ones.

Please don't minimise and dismiss the voices and realities of biological females to try and enforce a political position.

I belong to a wild lone camping group. Women in the group have had to, under group rules, stop giving any details in the group as to where and when they go, or sharing photographs because of multiple incidents of men stalking the group to find out where a woman would be alone, and following or assaulting her, that escalated to the point of the group leaders making it a rule. Those men saw a lone woman in a quiet place as a really great rape target and were prepared to work hard to achieve it, including following women miles up mountains.

In this case in the OP, men would not have to do a single damn thing but say 'I identify as', to join this group and have access to all the information and get to go along. Living with female biology is different and I understand if you can't get that. But expecting female people to pretend otherwise to avoid an uncomfortable bit of reality doesn't help anyone. Plus female people should have the right to be only with female people if they choose to, regardless of how not female people feel about that.

"I belong to a wild lone camping group. Women in the group have had to, under group rules, stop giving any details in the group as to where and when they go, or sharing photographs because of multiple incidents of men stalking the group to find out where a woman would be alone, and following or assaulting her, that escalated to the point of the group leaders making it a rule. Those men saw a lone woman in a quiet place as a really great rape target and were prepared to work hard to achieve it, including following women miles up mountains."

Bloody hell!

Yes. The questions are posed to stir shit.

They are also posed to reveal weak organisations where the safety of women can be over ridden.

Rape, assault and murder the outcomes. This is not hyperbole. This, as we all know, is reality.

Even if the guy merely walks up the mountain and approaches your tent to nicely offer you a jaffa cake and ask if you might like a bit of sex? No? No thanks? Well I'll just pitch over here by you then.

You've still got a woman whose privacy has been invaded, who is now on full alert of what the guy may or may not decide to do because it's in his gift as to whether she has to fight off an assault tonight, is at best extremely pissed off and is quite likely to pack up and get the fuck out of the place.

The issue is male entitlement to female bodies. To use as they want. Consent optional and to be taken as a soft limit at best. Bodies to be used for company, for support, as a prop in a fantasy, as a sex doll - we're not grading this on what kinds of use is ok and what's definitely over the line. It's not ok full stop.

Sorry, not ranting at you purple

Whoops. You've accidentally included the original screenshot alongside the one you've edited to obscure the poster's name. You need to report your post to admin to remove that pic.

Wow! That’s so awful about the lone camping group. I think it’s this kind of thing that people just don’t see as being the low level restrictions on freedom that women face.

Another thing men don’t notice is how different the vibe is in a women-only group and this is because when women are in a mixed group (of even just one man and many women) they usually adapt to the preferred subject matter of the male mainstream as well as change the way they speak. And they apologise for “girly” subject matter. This is widely documented.

So I would imagine that the dynamic of a women-only group with a transwoman would depend entirely on how they perceived that transwoman, as a man or a woman, and therefore how comfortable they felt sharing confidences and speaking freely.

Same thing for men-only groups where one woman enters and they tone down their speech (annoyingly so but there it is).

It would be interesting to see sociolinguistic studies on this.

On the other hand if a trans woman genuinely wants to make friends then I would feel bad about excluding her, especially if her transition is making her lonely.

I don’t know that the answer is. I feel like the viewpoints are irreconcilable.

On the other hand if a trans woman genuinely wants to make friends then I would feel bad about excluding her, especially if her transition is making her lonely.

But what's stopping a transwoman from joining a mixed-sex group? Why do they have to undo the female one?

Why not apply the same logic about any male?

"On the other hand if a man genuinely wants to make friends then I would feel bad about excluding him, especially if (whatever) is making him lonely."

Same nonsense as the Hampstead Heath ponds - there are male, female and mixed-sex, but transwomen insist on entry to the female. As a male, to insist on entry to the female-only space is at best just incredibly self-centred. At worst, well...

If there is a legitimate purpose per the equality act then transwomen can be excluded...but not based on fearmongering....needs to be real threats, not made up ones.

The Act allows private clubs and other associations (except political parties) to restrict membership to people who share protected characteristics.

A women's walking club is absolutely allowed.

In fact, by allowing some males in but not others, they might be on dodgier territory.

In fact, by allowing some males in but not others, they might be on dodgier territory.

I'm not so sure about that - anyone more knowledgeable can chime in.

Private clubs and associations generally have more freedom on how they select members. I believe they have a broader "exemption" on discrimination rules.

This is not like a service, who would normally be subject to discrimination rules, but then have a narrower exemption for single-sex - that's the exemption we're normally discussing that Stonewall want to eliminate. But I don't think private clubs are relying on that.

Why not apply the same logic about any male?

"On the other hand if a man genuinely wants to make friends then I would feel bad about excluding him, especially if (whatever) is making him lonely."

Well yes, I would apply that logic to a trans man entering a male only group, but I also take your point about a mixed sex group if there is one available.

What I suppose I’m getting at is for a trans person to successfully pass as and be treated as their desired sex, they are ultimately reliant on other people’s perception of what that biological sex is and that is a case by case basis.

When we meet a new person, the process we use to decide which sex a person is and then how we relate to them is a visceral one, based on a range of biological markers displayed by that person but also on a range of personality traits.

So for example when I see/listen to Katie Montgomery I perceive her as female. I mean I disagree with a lot of what she says but that’s not the point. Apart from looking like a woman she has the mannerisms and speech pattern of one. So the way I would relate to her would be as a woman. And that’s not something I could help. So I’d be happy to count her as a fellow female, except obviously when it comes to biological matters, and would feel unjust in chucking her out of a woman only group.

So for example when I see/listen to Katie Montgomery I perceive her as female. I mean I disagree with a lot of what she says but that’s not the point. Apart from looking like a woman she has the mannerisms and speech pattern of one. So the way I would relate to her would be as a woman. And that’s not something I could help. So I’d be happy to count her as a fellow female, except obviously when it comes to biological matters, and would feel unjust in chucking her out of a woman only group.

The same Katy Montgomery who listens to women going to the toilet and then explicitly talks about those women's toilet habits all over the internet? Sorry no thanks, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone like that.

Well yes, I would apply that logic to a trans man entering a male only group,

No, I'm talking about any man (male) wanting in to a female group. Why not? He's lonely.

I agree with you. On a similar kind of note, I am waiting to see what happens at my small local gym. If TWAW are allowed to self identify pre op, there is one open plan changing room. If an alternative changing room is not offered (me or them) there's no way I'll be getting showered and changed, and will have to go somewhere else. I haven't asked what their policy would be, I probably should, but suspect there would be a fall out.I can't just go home to do it, as I go swimming.

The same Katy Montgomery who listens to women going to the toilet and then explicitly talks about those women's toilet habits all over the internet? Sorry no thanks, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone like that.

Well I didn’t know about that so yuck! Do you have a link?

No, I'm talking about any man (male) wanting in to a female group. Why not? He's lonely.

Well then, no. Because there is value in having same sex spaces as long as everyone has equal opportunities and resources. And men have lots.

I think it's fine, but would wonder why they were excluding some men.

No guy is going to throw on a frock to join a group of women on a walk in the wilderness.

I doubt that anyone is wearing a frock to go hiking. However, do abusive men adopt a persona to ingratiate themselves with their victims? Yes. For some women this means drawing a line and saying they need to physically separate themselves from all men in situations where they feel vulnerable, even 'nice' men. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Well then, no. Because there is value in having same sex spaces as long as everyone has equal opportunities and resources. And men have lots.

Right. I think the only place there's a serious conflict here is when there are two spaces/events - male and female.

In that case you might have a male who is not comfortable being in a space with other males (because they think other males will have a problem with them appearing female), and females who are not comfortable being in a space with males. Both can not be made happy in that scenario. But overall, saying the male has to use the male space harms fewer people.

If there is already mixed-sex provision, this is a no-brainer. The transwoman can use the mixed-sex space. No-one will think they're out of place, whether or not they perceive the transwoman as male or female.

If the transwoman is still not satisfied by that - the demand is an absolute "I will not share space with males (except transwomen?)", then that is unreasonable. This is not a private facility - you're going to have to share it with other people. Maybe there might be enough demand for a transwomen-only time/space? Try to organise one?

Same basic logic works for competitive sports - sorry, but you're going to have to compete with other males, or arrange a transwomen-only event. (Because mixed-sex is not viable in competition).

NecessaryScene, yes that seems right. It’s about causing the least harm possible.

I think if you start blurring the lines for 'passing' that just makes it even less fair and transparent. Trans people shouldn't be made to feel that they need to pass. It's either all or none.

No worries Red.

You've posted really good, informative stuff.

MishyJDI
Lols. Makes me laugh. No guy is going to throw on a frock to join a group of women on a walk in the wilderness. Fearmongering rating 10

If there is a legitimate purpose per the equality act then transwomen can be excluded...but not based on fearmongering....needs to be real threats, not made up ones

Oh such lols isn’t it?! No man would ever pretend to be something he’s not in order to assault a woman, would he?

Anyone got a link to the Twitter thread with hundreds of examples of men pretending to be doctors, priests, gay, vulnerable, police etc in order to assault women?

mobile.twitter.com/bunifoosh/status/1234230539760144389

A quick google.

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/03/online-violence-against-women-chapter-3/

Oh. Amnesty put this out. Hmmmm.

melmagazine.com/en-us/story/elleohhell-wife-twitter-scam

Men pretending to be women online (deserves a thread of its own on here)