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.

Thank you, that post will be useful next time there's a thread on how nasty and aggressive FWR is.

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.

But you just said it wasn't real research??

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.

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

Soz. I love me a good bit of data.

In that case they need to change the name. Dykes are same-sex attracted women, not same-gender.

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

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.

I dont read pink news. I just found a link to the yougov survey on there.

My argument is that some of the lesbians you saw could identify as trans men. You'd never know unless they told you. You'd just think they are women.

Trying to intimidate women through rudeness is just so much fun though.

They can identify as chopped liver for all I care. They are women.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.