A link is here.
For the record, she does state that she is “no longer comfortable” associating with the group that was trying to meet there. And as I write this, it has only been 3 days since her original post. I think that this has to do more with her plausible deniability going out the window than anything else.
I would like also to talk about the comment made by Jo:
Absolutely disgusted that Nesbitt’s ridiculous, illogical, and bigoted comments about the exclusion of trans* women were allowed to pass unremarked. Equating MRAs with trans* activists is a truly disgusting tactic. Shame on the interviewer for skipping over this point, and for allowing Nesbitt to conflate the vile actions of MRAs with the principled and intersectional criticisms of trans* people and allies.
As far as I can determine, there have been no vile actions on the part of MRAs. I will note that this may be a practical consideration more than anything else. Feminism is still very much a darling of the media. If MRAs were actually to do anything inappropriate, the media would be all over it like stink on a skunk.
But feminism is a supremacy group. Feminists see males as innately inferior and not fully human. They are not going to let anyone escape this judgement through a little operation. To them, trans-women are men because you cannot escape being sub-human. Logically, advocates for the rights of trans-women are advocates for men’s rights. So, to them, it’s all the same; they’re all MRAs. They don’t care how the people identify themselves.