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.

That was a reference to your previous comment that this 'isn't a group for GC people like you'.

But it isnt because it is openly inclusive of trans people.

Did I say that?

Indeed. And that is the crux of the issue. The group is called "Dykes". It is therefore up to the organisers who they wish to include.

If the group was called Women - then it would have to be women.
If the group was called Lesbians - I don't know.

I can understand the frustration among GC lesbians but in this case they don't seem to have a case - which is why terminology matters and you can't just say - that's what the organisers decided, or that's what the majority want.

OK, so we've established that 'Dykes Who Hike' are not necessarily dykes at all. In fact not necessarily female at all, the word 'Dyke' is being used as a portmanteau word to mean anybody.

So what about the other part of the name of the group? The 'hiking' bit? do they actually hike, or is that just a portmanteau word that covers roll-blading, bike-riding, and parkour?

Does 'Dykes Who Hike' mean 'Anybody Who Does Anything'?

Yes they hike as the OP detailed.

Because this group has said it is inclusive. Their group. Their rules.
The other smaller group is not including trans women. If the OP joined that one to find the rule was not properly applied, fair enough to reflect.
But to reflect on a group doing what it says it will do. That is odd. Not all lesbians are GC, not all are trans exclusionary.
And if critics of the inclusive group are straight anyway, which GC lesbians are you fighting for? Have they asked you to? Cos in this case, clearly, they can literally vote with their feet.

Massive branding fail to call the group Dykes Who Hike, with a subheader saying, no, actually, not Dykes but a free for all for LGBTQ+ 'folk' (to add that lovely little touch of twee).

More accurate to call it Humans Who Hike. Or maybe Folks With Legs. Both of which would exclude the + brigade who might identify as faeries or mermen. Very tricky.

Seems to be branded well as it is relatively popular with the people who want to attend. Seems like they marketed just right.

No, their branding is way off - they used a word in their marketing which is misleading as to composition - but don't worry, I'm not going to suggest the Trade Description Act 1968 applies
I'm just going to point out that if their group is not composed of dykes, maybe they should call it something else.

Accuracy in marketing is important, and (unless you are a talking egg in Alice in Wonderland) words, like 'dykes' or 'hiking', don't mean what random individuals decide they mean.

It's perfectly accurate because it has got them the membership they desire. They're perfectly happy with their group from the looks of things.

Is being "popular" the key test or actually having a women's event for only women - as the law seems to require?

Everyone seems to be assuming they are trans too despite not appearing to have made any changes and presenting as men wearing dresses...in a lesbian group. Huh.

Having worked in a lingerie shop I'm well aware there are men who get a sexual thrill from wearing women's clothing. Look up autogynephilia.

I am willing to bet there's been some of those.

I don't support any women's group having a policy of accepting trans woman. But if they do at least ask for a gender recognition certificate.

It looks like they have done enough to keep the queer-police at bay but are managing to signal that they are really a lesbian group by using the word Dyke. My thoughts are actually to leave them alone to get on with it.

It isn't an LGBT group because it doesn't include gay or bisexual men...well unless they claim to be a woman.

It also is debatable how much it's a transgender group as afaik they don't require any evidence.

I was making a general point about the importance of women's groups and why some women want a single sex environment.

I'm not a lesbian so obviously I wouldn't be joining either of those discussed. There will be lesbians in a similar position to me though.

When I last looked into this I couldn't find any appropriate womens only groups in my area.

I would also be extremely concerned about these being targeted by protestors, if they restricted their entry to biological women as even women's only rape crisis centres have been targeted.

The description says:

queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk 🫶

It doesnt say women only. The leaders are lesbians or dykes.

Where there's an invasion, there are usually collaborators.

On this case, the invaders would be the people who turn up despite knowing they have a problem with the admission policy.

Right...so how come there are no gay or bisexual men of the hundred or so. Or trans men?

It's called "Dykes". Clearly the gay men and trans men think it's a women's group. Because that's a term used to describe women.

Then the bit underneath sounds like it means bisexual "dykes" or trans "dykes" etc.

It doesn't sound like it means gay men and trans men.

Though maybe now that's been corrected, one of the GC gay mens groups will pop by...

Likely because they don't want to go. They are welcome though. I also wouldn't trust that the OP was able to determine who identified as a trans man or as NB on sight.

Remember we only have the OPs words on what they think they saw

Yes. And if he was told he could not join, he could sue them for discrimination.

I dont know why so many have bothered to wag their finger at OP.

She isn't making a value judgement. She is reflecting on the experience of being or participating in a trans inclusive group.

So if you read the OP again and pay attention to her comments on the interaction, ie as an example of being in a trans inclusive setting.

So not inclusive then. Got it.

They arent mind readers so you'd have to do quite a bit for them to know they don't want you there.

But it’s not a lesbian group is it? They include men. Men can’t be lesbians. HTH

Glad you admit they’re not inclusive then.