>I am suggesting that seeking to fully understand OP's position, starting from the assumption that OP is a rational individual giving a true and faithful account of her reasonable reaction to a sequence of events would be a worthwhile endeavor.
I read the article on Facebook. I read the commentary by the lady scientist on stage.
I took them at their word about the reaction that they were having.
A reaction of one participant is not the whole story.
My comments were an exercise in probabilities where the outwards symptoms would have been same as seen by the participants of the events.
Hence I said there is a chance that the moderator was not being sexist.
BTW, in what other situations would you grant someone making the claim to be true and faithful recount of events without any further inquiry; especially when you are labeling a living human being as "sexist" for rest of his life, with all the consequences of that in 21st century this day and age.
I read the article on Facebook. I read the commentary by the lady scientist on stage.
I took them at their word about the reaction that they were having.
A reaction of one participant is not the whole story.
My comments were an exercise in probabilities where the outwards symptoms would have been same as seen by the participants of the events.
Hence I said there is a chance that the moderator was not being sexist.
BTW, in what other situations would you grant someone making the claim to be true and faithful recount of events without any further inquiry; especially when you are labeling a living human being as "sexist" for rest of his life, with all the consequences of that in 21st century this day and age.