>
Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?"You could start by listening to what Veronika Hubeny said in response to the claim:
"I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior...I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism....I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me."
Beyond that you could trust the evidence when indisputable, for example when someone uses the term "mansplaining"; or when someone makes a remark about female drivers; or when there's pay disparity for the same role, etc. Pretty obvious really.
The consequences of jumping the gun is that you discredit someone not deserving of that smear campaign. You seem completely insensitive to the moderator, and the potential harm this could bring his reputation. No doubt you believe he can weather the storm because he's a man. That logic is inferred from your earlier remark that women will be labelled "pushy and aggressive" and shamed if seen to be "taking charge" whereas a man would not because of your perception about his "cultural position". Your divisive expectations are working against you in this argument. You believe the hard exterior of a man's shell is worth a few false flags for the good of drawing attention to sexism. I do not believe that which is why I'm replying.
> "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading,
Why? In her FB post, Talkington states: "The sexism is beyond blatant."
It sounds like you blatantly want this to be about sexism, because why... you want to find evidence of wrong-doing because you're convinced it's rampant and out of control? Calling out sexism is important, but it should never involve discrediting someone based on a hunch, or Facebook post, or whatever other perceived smoking gun motivates you to jump on the hype train.
Put yourself in the moderator's shoes, consider his more than likely innocence in this matter even on the implicit bias front, and good luck with the empathy and understanding. Bye.