Glorianny
Actually I have read the article and the person who seemed to find the presence of a transwoman offensive was the organiser. There were no comments or views from those attending. She then resorted to what I would regard as a patriarchal method of dealing with this,by banning everyone apart from what she described as "adult female bodied people".
Now she would be legally entitled to do this had she bothered to ask those attending if they were unhappy with the presence of transwomen and if they would prefer to be single sex. She appears not to have done so.
Lesbians who do not wish to attend speed dating where transwomen are present are entirely and legally entitled to say so. However no one person should be entitled to dictate to others who attends an event, regardless of their sexuality, gender, race, religion or any other characteristic or trait.
And once again sped dating is simply a way of meeting people it does not necessitate having sex with them.
Is it possible that your “preconceived ideas” led to your totally misreading the narrative.
“The person who seemed to find the presence of a transwoman offensive was the organiser”
The report said quite clear *attendees”
“There were no comments from those attending”
The report said that attendees had approached the organiser relating incidents of intimidation and abuse.
“She resorted…. by banning”
She posted a request that only females should attend
“She appears not have (asked whether those attending were unhappy”
She already had the expressed opinions of attendees and acted on those not a “patriarchal” decision of her own
I could go on. As I said you have totally rewritten the narrative until it bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
If you are interested in truth you will reread the report and come back to admit that somehow your prejudices led you to misread what was actually reported.
Or you may wish to continue to believe that your version, based upon nothing except fiction, is the one you will adhere to.