It is my understanding that a trans demonstration was already taking place nearby. Who registered first does not strike me as interesting. If you can expect a conflict, and do not want it, you do what you have to to avoid it, no matter who is right or wrong.
No, I do not. As I said... repeatedly... I think Sisters Salon has every right to do what they were doing. Why they would exclude men in the audience is a little baffling. I mean, what of a husband or dad who wants to understand women's concerns more in depth? But whatever, it's their right to be exclusive.
As has happened all too often in this discussion, your understanding is incorrect. I have taken the trouble to transcribe exactly what that out-of-control menace-to-society said in his video.
"I had just finished a speech of
defiance to the International Day of Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. and I was fired up. I was walking home past the library and something went in my head, and I knew I could not let it go. So I walked into the library and found the room where they were having their meeting..."
He doesn't mention what the event he had attended earlier consisted of, but it was not at the library, nor can we say necessarily that it was "nearby", and nor was it apparently a "demonstration". It was something to do with the "International Day of Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia", whatever that happens to be, and he made a speech. It may have been an indoor meeting. It does not appear to have been a demonstration. It was somewhere else, and he was walking home from that.
Why on earth should Sisters Salon be expected to cancel an already-arranged and advertised Women's Health Hub because there was an entirely unrelated event happening somewhere else in the town? You're making even less sense than usual.
It appears that the trans-activist knew that the Women's Health Hub was meeting at that time, in the building he happened to be passing, whether because he had seen advertising in advance or because he happened to see a notification on the building as he passed, we don't know. Such was his hatred of Sisters Salon for organising anything that men were excluded from, he decided on the spur of the moment to disrupt the meeting. That's it. That's the action you think is justified, or at least understandable, because it's absolutely natural that a man would be "fired up" to the point where he would lash out at a group of women discussing women's health issues.
Why would a women's group exclude men from a women's health meeting? You seriously find that baffling? You seriously think that women wouldn't mind talking about their intimate health issues in front of someone else's husband or dad? The group does arrange meetings which include men, maybe to address exactly the point you raise. But you seem to believe that every single meeting should be open to men, no matter how much women might feel excluded by the presence of men, and how much other provision there is for men. It's their right, but one you believe they ought not to exercise. Because menz feelz, or something.
How misogynistic is that?
The only reference to a demonstration is at the end of the video, where the trans-activist claimed to the police who arrested him that his action was a protest demonstration. On that basis, the captured, pro-trans police immediately let him go.
