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.

So why are they using “Dyke”? That is a term for a lesbian or a drainage ditch. I don’t think they’re campaigning for drainage ditches so why use dyke if the group is not just for female homosexuals? Is this another word the trans activists have co-opted to mean what they want it to mean?

If I was vocally GC and part of the "movement", as it were, I'd be very public about criticising anyone who did this kind of thing in the name of "women's rights" or whatever. It just seems like antagonistic anx quite creepy behaviour, speculating on people's motiviations and desires for attending a hiking group of all things and then "assessing" how they behave when you sre the new person to that environment.

For all OP knew, the trans people are regulars who everyone knows like to keep to themselves but enjoy the presence of others. People walk for different reasons and in different ways.

So LGBTQ groups get to determine who they want in their groups, but women are not? How does that work then? Weren’t lesbian groups in Brighton and London cancelled because they would not allow males in?

I think because said lesbians whp organise the event believe anyone who identifies as a woman or femme with primary attraction to women and femmes can self identify as a dyke if they so wish.

So it is because these lesbians believe TWAW, whether they'd date a TW or not. There are many people who I accept are men and I would never date despite being a heterosexual woman.

This is how the group has structured itself, find groups exclusive to biological women if you do not like it.

Likely because the public do not support them so much that they want them cancelled and/or when they do go ahead, not enough people in that category are interested in attending an event they feel is not inclusive.

So basically, a lack of public support. Similar to why a white woman's group might not take off.

You mean you wild never date a TIF? Why? If TIF are men then as a good trans ally surely you should include them in your dating pool? If not why not? I mean the fact you are clear you are heterosexual gives a clue, but isn’t that really a bit transphobic? Are you “ally in the streets, TERF in the sheets” as the saying goes?

But there was support. TRA phoned the venues and threatened the venues. So again, why are some groups allowed to determine who they want in the group and some are not? In Australia a TIM took the founder of an app for females only to court because he was banned for being male. So no, women are nit allowed their own spaces so why should LGBTQ people be allowed their own spaces?

No that's not how it works. You don't have to agree to have sex with someone to accept who they are. It's very sad that you think that.

I agree men with a body type I find unattractive are still men. I don't have to marry one and fuck him to prove that. So if I did believe trans men are men, why would I have to agree to have sex with one or partner with one to "prove" I see them as men?

It's a very infantile argument in all honesty.

It didn't use that sort of terminology though, did it. It used the word 'dyke' which is a word which originates in radical feminist circles and is strongly suggestive of lesbian only spaces and activities.

Perhaps it should have been named 'Queer hike' for all those that 'identify as' 'queer' or as LGBTQ+?

Well youre the one saying you’d never date a TIF because you don’t see them as men. If you saw them as men, you wouldnt automatically discount them would you? Seems pretty TERF like behaviour. Tut tut.
we have TRA saying lesbians are transphobic for not dating TIM so you saying you’d never date a TIF because you’re. Heterosexual woman… well… I don’t make the rules….

Because so many biological women are more interested in including trans women in their spaces becauae they believe they are women. That's why events that exclude trans women are not very popular. Especially, it seems, events that are aimed at gay or bi women but exclude trans women. I'm sure you could get one going which was for heterosexual married women who don't want to share space with trans women but then "dyke" definitely wouldn't be fitting.

It sounds like they have a great turn out of mostly biological women with their inclusive policy. Why would they change that?
.

I automatically exclude many types of men from.my dating pool based on numerous things about the way they look or their bodies. They are still men. Just won't ever be my man.

So if they’re not very popular, why are TIM so determined to get in? Why don’t they just pop off to the inclusive places and leave the spaces that done want them alone?

I think the interesting facts from the OP's post are, firstly, that the lesbians are seriously outnumbering the transbians and, secondly, that they appear to have found a way to contain the men either by ignoring them or outwalking them! Even though they advertise themselves as trans-inclusive they have found a way to be inclusively exclusive. Good for them.

But how do you know those women are what you call biological women? I mean, if biology doesn’t determine what a woman is then…

No idea why they hid my reply. There are lots of men i wouldnt date nd automatically exclude based on something about their physical self. It doesnt mean they arent men

They do. That's why the hiking group for bio women is nearly dead and this inclusive one is so popular. Nobody wants to be at the GC one.

Well the OP seemed pretty convinced that there were 130 lesbians and 5-6 trans women. I am going by her magical ability to identify all trans people on sight.

I’m not sure that I follow all this.

Were these men saying that they were lesbians?

I’m a biological female but I’m straight, so there’s no way I’d impose myself on a lesbian group.

It’s not just the hiking group is it? It seems to be any group where women want single sex groups. Look at Bieras place, the only single sex rape crisis centre in Edinburgh. It gets hate on a daily basis as it won’t let TIM in. Even though nearly every other RCC in Edinburgh will let them in. Why is that do you think?

It's a group that uses Dyke in its title, but is openly inclusive of trans and NB people. The OP attaneded and then speculated on the interactions between the 5-6 trans women they identified and the other attendees that they identified as "lesbians" and presumably biological women.

Because a lot of people disagree with the need for such spaces to be separated by biological sex. That's obvious.

Well you’d hopefully believe that all the women were L or B, otherwise wouldn’t it be straight people inserting themselves in groups not for them….

Straight women are known for using queer spaces inappropriately. I'd not assume they were all definitely attracted to other women.

Youre telling me some knobheads believewomen who have been raped by men don’t need and deserve single sex spaces away from men? Surely only the nastiest, most woman hating misogynists would believe that. If all the other RcCC are inclusive of men, why does it matter if this one exists? Why do the TRA attack it on a daily basis and abuse the staff? What possible benefit would they get out of it closing?