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.

Trans women at a trans inclusive event? What did you expect? Join or form a gender critical hiking club and stop making sly digs at women just because they are trans.

I won’t share screenshots, whoever asked - I think if people comment on a members’ WhatsApp group the reasonable expectation is that the communication stays in the group.

I suppose what I found interesting was it was this one bloke was taking up an enormous amount of airtime - risqué jokes, selfies etc which no one else was sharing, in a context where there was no need to. Was it a coincidence that it was him, rather than any of the 130 (majority female) walkers? I don’t think so. It seems like male entitlement, and consistent behaviour with a man turning up at an event for dykes.

And then the “Well you’re here, so we’ll tolerate you” attitude that many of the women showed - bit of small talk with the TW then move away, where groups of women who’d never met before were getting pally quite quickly (as is the aim of an event like this, really).

I agree with a PP. I think the “dykes” in the group name means one thing really - lesbians - and TIMs turning up is interesting in light of that.

The reality seemed like weary tolerance rather than trans-inclusivity, and I found that very interesting. Likewise the lack of TIW.

I don’t go to many lesbian or women’s events so it won’t be a scientific survey, but “Well they’re here, let’s tacitly agree to ignore them and go about our activity” seems to be the prevailing mood at the events I have attended. Which is a poor outcome really - the TIMs feel the warm glow of acceptance, and the female majority suffers intrusion into a space meant for them.

I’d add, there’s an almost standard “TWAW” subheader at a lot of lesbian events in London aimed (explicitly or implicitly) at younger women. I think it would be very difficult for these organisers or any attendees to stray from that or question it, because that’s very much the water they swim in and the assumption is that they’d be cancelled (are we still cancelling people?) if they came out with “women only”. From actually going to these things though, you see women going off together and TW excluded socially in the manner of a high school disco.

And of course it’s not for me to see into the organisers’ souls and discern their views on trans rights. Though at the end of hike drinks they were having a lovely time with their 20-something female pals and the few TIMs remaining were once again in their own group.

A whites only walking group would be illegal.

You mean by dancing?

Lesbian/dyke communities used to be predicated on non hierarchical structures of organisation.

Lol. You claimed in one of the first of your dozens of posts on here to be GC. What does that mean to you, exactly? Given you're equating a single sex club with apartheid?

And logic on sexual orientation doesn't work. You don't have to include all men in your dating pool to be straight. But you don't exclude anyone because they are male, do you? That's the difference. * *

Why go through the pretence of calling it a Dyke hike' then?

We both know the reason is to score political points and to insert the idea that some men are also lesbians. If you simply want an 'inclusive' hike, why not name and advertise it clearly?

@13RidgmontRoad

Thank you for a really interesting OP about how the dynamics of one supposedly "inclusive" space are working in practice.

Taking at face value the argument made by PPPs (profilific previous posters) that the "Hairy Bikers" model rather than the "Women's Changing Room" model is the one that applies to Dykes Who Hike ("This Hairy Bikers ride is so named because it was set up by two Bikers who were Hairy. You don't have to Hairy to join as long as you are a Biker...."), the part that is relevant to the group makeup isn't "Dykes" but the list of "queer, bi, wlw girlies, trans and non-binary folk".

What strikes me in that case is that the intention of this group is actually exclusive. The group they envision is one that excludes so-called "cis" men in favour of those who prefer, to coin a phrase, the Femmer things in life.

As PPP also mentioned, this is very much a pattern. It used to be said out loud more often, but in a lot of supposedly progressive circles "woman" and even "queer" are still being used as a euphemism for "not-Men", where "Men" are constructed as male people who express cultural male norms and not-Men are everyone else. One of the issues I have with the appropriation of female-specific language is that this is so often then leveraged into a reconstruction of Feminism into some sort of "rights and acceptance for all" movement, leaving no poltical space or activism that is focused on the specific needs and moral rights of female people and based in analysis of the specific historic/cultural journey we have taken.

All that said, I absolutely think as long as society is Default-Male and as long as said Default Men take up an unfair share of the space, dialogue and identity of social events, there is a need and should be space for groups that want to engender a non-default-male atmosphere. In a world where Male is default, the not-defaults do have common needs and preferences and maybe ways of interacting that get crowded out.

OP - the list of identities would appear to allow for gay men (queer) - did any happen to choose to join?

I think this is a generational thing. Millennials ( those born between around 1981 - 1996) have been inculcated into gender ideology and don't really know what true women only spaces and events are. They have little choice in their social circles. The whole gay scene has been well and truly 'queered'. Lesbians have had to socialise in 'queer spaces' which are mixed sex.

However, we are now starting to see a return to women seeking true women only spaces and events. More and more women only gyms; women only sessions at swimming and in saunas.Male pattern behaviours don't change and with age and experience women realise this and they want and require spaces away from men.

OP - the list of identities would appear to allow for gay men (queer) - did any happen to choose to join?

@FlirtsWithRhinos no. Which again is interesting. The demographic split seemed very much “130 outdoorsy lesbians in their 20s - 40s” and then this minority male lot. And no TIFs that I could see.

I agree. I enjoy both women-only and mixed social groups, but I wouldn’t want a man invading the women’s group. Despite the name, Dykes Who Hike is clearly mixed-sex, and sounds as if it would welcome the sort of creepy men I want to avoid. I hope there are also women-only alternatives? Hiking is a great activity for women to enjoy together.

No by being domineering, obnoxious snd offensive. Such as going to a lesbian bar and getting offended when women hit on them.

By creepy men, do you mean trans women?

Is that because they weren't wearing "I aM a TrAns MaN" on a hat or a tshirt?

So you think every single women's event a young person has attended has included the presence of trans people?

They don't want events that don't include trans people. It's as simple as that. They arent interested and don't share your views. That is why the GC group has no attendees. Nobody wants to be around people with those views.

Because for the millionth time, the organisers are dykes and it is their group to call what they want. Go to the dead hike group with no members and definitely no trans people if you want different.

Yes I am. I don't believe TWAW, but because of my interactions with GC people in this group including seeing how far they reach to justify what is essentially just a disgust of trans women, I'd never attend any event that explicity excludes trans women in fear it is populated by irrational people like the ones in here.

"From actually going to these things though, you see women going off together and TW excluded socially in the manner of a high school disco."

What you probably see are people sticking to small groups that they know. You then speculate it's because everyone is repulsed by trans women like you are. Some people attend groups to be with other people, but not necessarily to socialise. Hiking for example, people often join groups for safety and experience. Not to chat and giggle with new people.

"But you don't exclude anyone because they are male, do you?"

And actually yes. For instance, if I was bisexual, I might date a woman who had a history of X but turn down a man for his history of the same thing.

Straight women tend to hang around with gay men in gay bars which are predomdinantly male .There are so few 'women only' or lesbian bars anymore I cannot see this happening.

Which/where lesbian bars is it in which you frequently see lots of straight women? There are no women only venues in most places these days.

'Disgust of trans women' is a straw man.

People are trying to ascertain what the rules are wrt this group and discussing the dynamics of the group - how dynamics seem to change when males are around.

I'm not disgusted by men and i doubt many if any other posters are.

Its possible to discuss the fact that they are different from women without being disgusted by them.

You've made your point, repeatedly - that women shouldn't be able to have anything for ourselves without males, and you believe that wanting to = hate/disgust of trans women.

We understand that there is a bio women only hiking group - its existing is not the ppint. Posters are interested in the dynamics and social pressures on women wrt these groups, and the re purposing of words that used to mean women only.

Please don't accuse others of "disgust" simpy because they don't share your views.

My concern is and always has been not who gets to socialise with who, but that overwriting the linguistic, political and cultural existence of the female half of humanity with some sort of loose self-identified personality characteristic is going to work out very badly for women in the long term. "Disgust" is nothing to do with it beyond a general disgust for people who are trying to apply a sexist identity framework onto others.

You are welcome to search my history to verify this.

'Trans people' are either male or female no matter how they 'identify', not a distinct or separate category of human being that exists outwith that binary.

I suggest most young lesbians have grown accustomed to only socialising in mixed sex groups because the whole scene has been 'queered' and now doesn't recognise, or permit, true 'women only' spaces. Women have been told they are exclusionary or 'unkind' for wanting stuff for themselves.

There are few/if any women only gay bars or venues around anymore. Though gay men still seem to make sure they keep male only spaces/saunas/venues/crusing spots all to themselves.

This is a generational trend, but I suggest that slowly women will/and are returning to the recognition of the value of female only spaces, venues and categories. After all, human - male nature doesn't change - no matter how you try to pretend it is invisible.

Gay men don't particularly like them in their venues either.

I know a lesbian bar where this article is printed in the toilets.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-guide-for-straight-women-at-gay-bars-by-a-queer-woman/

Found this while looking for it:

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/who-let-the-straights-in/