Reflections on trans presence at a Dykes Who Hike event

[13RidgmontRoad]

For those who don't know DWH, it's an informal mainly Instagram-promoted event and the organisers, two women in their 20s, arrange (relatively accessible) hikes in locations mainly in SE England. Cost to join is £2 a ticket. Yesterday was the first one I've been on, which was 17 miles (Newhaven to Brighton). Around 130 people attended.

There were 5-6 TW on the hike that I could see; two older chaps, one in a dress and heavy makeup, the other looking very much just like a bloke in men's clothing. Four younger ones who looked like the wind might blow them away.

Older blokey one was very annoying - lots of mansplaining on the Whatsapp group, selfies and borderline inappropriate jokes, generally ignored.

Two of the younger ones peeled off about halfway through as they couldn't cope with the rest of the distance. Remaining younger ones were a couple and kept themselves to themselves. They were rather timid and socially awkward, which was a bit of a contrast to 130 hale and hearty lesbians in hiking boots.

I felt like most of the women there just gave the lot of them a wide berth - bit of polite chat then forward or back to join other women.

The (lovely) organisers are quite young and there's absolutely no way either of them would come out and bar TW. I imagine they'd be terrified to take a view. So it seemed very much like weary acceptance. It was rather interesting to observe.

It’s depressing when a social group evolves into a cohort that don’t gel. People simply drift away and establish new more appropriate groups.

Otherwise, my personal action toward protecting spaces for the intention they were originally intended, and removing the debate.

What a shame DWH can’t be single sex and 🤦‍♀️ to the mansplaining idiot. Hope it didn’t spoil your trek 13 (and I would have been peeling off early at the prospect of a 17 mile march!)

They're quite explicitly inclusive so I'm not sure why you'd attend if you were bothered about it. I can't say I could get particularly worked up about trans women joining a hike and not doing anything wrong. Imagine keeping to themselves!

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?

So any man can turn up then right?

Is this a case of GC people picking a trans inclusive group and joining just to attack it from within? Why else would someone GC join a group that says: "Walking group based in LDN for queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk."?

So any man can just turn up then?

To a public hike? I imagine so yes. Unless you think public paths are single sex spaces.

If 130 people went, it doesn’t appear too many are drifting away.

The question of social groups for women or lesbians is always going to be complicated.

Much easier to argue that men should be excluded when women are undressing or otherwise vulnerable.

It’s frustrating though, that so many men have been encouraged to join these groups as women who only want other women there no longer have that option, which is a step back, in social terms, for women.

An acquaintance (friend of a friend) described to a group of us her reaction on finding a man at her women’s guild meeting. She said it was immediately obvious there was a man there when she walked in (she heard him before she saw him). She said she was still trying to work out whether to use he or she.

She obviously assumed that she would be expected to just get on with it, and probably wouldn’t leave, but it obviously made her uncomfortable enough to mention it among friends several days afterwards.

There would be other women there who would react differently. I suspect there would be fawning from some and flight from others. It’s never neutral when there is a man among women because we all react differently to the opposite sex than we do to our own.

It’s very destructive for women and women’s spaces, despite the fact that many women tolerate it or even overcompensate. Eventually, those who don’t want men there will either drift away or the group will more actively split. We’ve seen this with WI groups that simply disbanded rather than exclude their pet men. And those who try to form women only groups will find themselves continually under attack, as part of the campaign is to wipe out women’s groups that don’t let men in.

Ultimately, women are losing out on women only groups and spaces. Whether they willingly accept that loss (like the organisers of this hike) or otherwise, it’s always women who have to give way.

They could just start their own hiking group and if there are sufficient numbers to support trans exclusion then they'll be successful. I think it's manifestly unreasonable to join an inclusive organisation and then moan that it's inclusive. As you say this isn't about single sex spaces (hills aren't single sex!) - it's about a thriving hiking group (several in fact) having no issues and that apparently being an issue. The OP seems to think that because they have joined a explicitly inclusive group that the group's founders are 'scared of taking a position' rather than just disagreeing with her. I'm GC and I disagree with her.

Hardly an attack, to go along and take part peacefully, then reflect on the situation afterwards without being critical about it, other than expressing frustration at the personality of one of the men who attended.

The wholesale invasion of women’s groups by men is worthy of discussion, I think, given it’s so pervasive.

I'm a bit confused my this as the blurb for it says queer, wlw, trans and non binary. DWH seems to be open to all.

There's another group called Hiking Dykes which refers to being for biological females only.

Did this group exist before in an exclusively single sex way? If it didn't then how was there a 'wholesale invasion' by men?

Quite. The OP would appear to be well-served by Hiking Dykes - though it appears they can't muster up more than five people at any one time. Considering Dykes Who Hike have more than 130 - it would rather seem that the lesbian hiking community have spoken about hiking!

Can you share the WhatsApp screen shots? Face and names blocked out?

@PriOn1I agree. This doesn’t raise the same sort of issues or the same urgency as changing rooms or rape shelters but single sex spaces are really nice, relaxed, open places to be. My local swimming pool runs women only sessions that really are women only (staff frequently have to chivvy men who are - ahem - somewhat slow to change before the women only sessions). I can’t often make these slots but I do so appreciate them when I can. The saunas in particular are so much more relaxing. It only takes one TW to spoil things for the majority.

That's what I was going to say. The organisers make it very clear that the group and their personal beliefs reflect TWAW. They explicitly designed the group that way.

If she is talking about the church of scotland womans guild that has just been 'the guild' for many years.

So you’d be ok if people who did not have a trans identity joined groups specifically set up for transpeople? If not, why not?

What group was set up for non-trans people? This hiking group is explicit that it is for everyone LGBTQ. It isn't just for homosexual biological women.

dykes who hike 🌈🚶‍♀️
Walking group based in LDN for queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk 🫶

So basically open to all. I mean, there is no one definition of queer, so anyone can go. How can someone prove they are queer? Is there like a certificate or a badge? Why don’t they just say open to everybody?

But this group was set up to include trans women so I'm really not sure how that's a fair comparison at all.

This is totally irrelevant. The group is explicit about being inclusive of everyone LGBTQ. Someone who turns up knowing they have a problem with that is the issue here. I don't know why anyone who isn't a troublemaker would do that.