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.

The thing is, there are so many women who are for inclusion of trans women, especially in non-heterosexual spaces, that they massively outnumber the amount of women who are against them. That is why lesbian events that exclude trans women are so sparsely populated as the GC hiking group shows.

You said, and I quote…

It isnt for GC lesbians who feel aggrieved, threatened or offended by the presence of trans women in such a space.

so not for all lesbians then?

Yes lebians that don't hold beliefs they find to be discriminatory or just plain vile. Or at least can put them aside enough to hike.

She didnt say that. I did. Keep up, babes

No, I didn't say that. So you're not quoting at all.

So no thoughts on the other two groups I mentioned? You seem very single minded.

Oh no, silly me getting my TRA mixed up again. Must be my silly little lady brain teehee

What other groups?

It must be so bizarre to go through life like this. Do you have anyone in real life you can get support from? Genuine question because you don't seem very well.

Harsh. Aren’t you supposed to #bekind?

Does not appear to be much to reflect on.
One hiking group accepts all
One doesn't
OP finds it interesting that first group has some LGBTQ attending in small numbers, either keeping themselves to themselves or being overtaken
Seems like the second group need support
Some of you could join that one and find like-minded hikers

I am being kind to you.

I think most of them would fail when it came to the "not heterosexual" part.

No-one has said that trail is a single sex space. Where are you getting that from as it would be ludicrous.
What people are saying is that the group should be single sex. I suspect legally it's in a grey area. If it was called Women Who Hike then it would have to be single sex. I don't know whether the recent Supreme Court ruling and subsequent EHCR guidance defined terminology such as lesbians and dykes to be single sex too.

I think it was always called as it is now. Why should the group be single sex if the organisers want it to be inclusive of people who identify with the term "dyke"?

It's an explicitly inclusive group and there is no requirement for it to be single sex. There is also a (significantly less well-attended) single sex hiking group that has existed long before this one if you wish to join that one. But going into an explicitly inclusive group and demanding they change? That is outrageous. Once again though - it's a hiking group! A hiking group!

They can't exclude GC people though - that would be illegal discrimination on the grounds of belief.

I think the point thatis repeatedly going over some rather aggressive posters heads is 'what are the rules'?

And why does there seem to be one set of rules for some people (randomly excluding certain people but not others) and not for others (women who want single sex spaces, which yes, we understand doesn't involve hiking trails, we are more discussing the general principle).

What are the rules and why do some people get to form exclusive groups but others don't?

This 'inclusive' group is not inclusive of everyone. Or is it? Again, what are the rules?

There could be many reasons by the Hiking Dykes (excluding transwomen) has lower numbers - more recently set up, no publicity (perhaps deliberately to avoid TRA interference), fewer hikes, other different parameters, etc

Why is it bizarre to want to see laws and rules properly applied?

I find it bizarre that some people seem to think it doesn't matter.

They haven't excluded GC people. The OP is literally an active member.

They can certainly exclude anyone who makes members they welcome feel oppressed, marginalised or outright attacked. Of course if you dont share your views and just hike like everyone else, nobody will know you are GC. It will be when you start trying to coerce the organisers into expelling trans women that you are thrown out yourself.

The rules are that the group is a Walking group based in LDN for queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk. Clearly stated.

Because the law may say it should be. I don't know if the law does though.

The law says women should be biological women only.
What does the law say lesbians are?
What does the law say dykes are?

Or just that nobody wants to go, like a whites only walking group probably wouldn't get many attendees of any ethnic background.

Hiking Dykes have been going decades longer. The inclusive group is a few years old. I find it surreal that you suggest TRA interference on a thread about a GC person joining an openly trans inclusive group. Surely it goes both ways - unless of course hypocrisy is the order of the day?

The law doesnt say anything about dykes except perhaps that it is a discriminatory term that some have reclaimed.