The women who would attend such a "debate" are far more likely to be. Imagine, for example, a whitist event attended only by whitists that exists for the purpose of getting more of everything for "whites" and as part of an ongoing campaign to corrupt and thus destroy the idea of racial equality. Same thing - biological group advocacy - just currently much less fashionable and powerful. Since it's such a self-selected sample of people chosen specifically for having the same opinions, it will be far more homogenous than the same number of randomly selected people. Sure, different biological group advocates may (and often do) disagree on the details of how to best promote the irrational prejudice and discrimination they believe in so devoutly that they choose it as they way they identify themselves, but they all have the same basic opinion.
Except you appear to have missed the whole point of the "event". It doesn't appear to be a a small group of "feminists" to chat amongst themselves. It's an event organised by a third party to incite debate amongst a wide group of women across the spectrum, with a hand picked panel and audience.
Having been to these kind of events (i.e. organised debates on controversial subjects) if it just ends up as a load of extreme feminists agreeing with each other then they've really cocked up, so personally I'm going to take the media statement at face value until I actually see the event, rather than make **** up for whatever reason.
Then again this is OcUK, full of grumpy old men that seem to hate strong, opinionated women so...
It is anti-feminist. Can't do anything about that - many things are a zero sum game. For example, there isn't an infinite amount of money for healthcare. Any healthcare resources spent on men are not spent on women, so it would require conflict with feminists. Indeed, any consideration at all for men on a social and political scale is inherently anti-feminist.
Prostate cancer would be a better example, by the way. Testicular cancer has a pretty good prognosis now thanks to the chance discovery and scientific curiousity that led to cisplatin.
Nope. There's big difference between competing for funding and trying to sabotage the funding of the other group without actually trying to get any of that funding. The former is what a "male advocacy" group would be aiming to do and is not "anti-feminist", the latter is what so many of the "anti feminist" groups seem to be doing right now.
"This is why we need funding" is very different to "they shouldn't be funded" and is similar to so many of the other equality movements work. Although so many seem to like to ignore the distinction if they don't like the cause.
EDIT: I see I'm a bit late with my replies. We've moved on from this particular debate to just ******* about women and equality in general.