I appreciate that you've posted non-anon. It seems few are willing to actually stand behind their beliefs.
As far as the source of the article. I am confused about the actual content of the talk. But, provided I understand what occurred, I think I disagree with the decision. [To cancel. Yes, that's right: disagree.]
But my points here are not about agreement [or not] of the actual decision. It's more about: How much should I be understanding and accommodating to needs I don't much understand - even if I feel they're excessive.
Because, perhaps even often, we feel someone else's needs are excessive when in reality - if the roles were reversed - we'd have the same position as the person we're opposing.
Because, far too often, we lack empathy for those around us, for those we don't identify as "like us."
Do you seriously think that was a reasonable accommodation, like helping a blind person cross the street?
...since I'm unclear of the actual facts of the case - because I'm unsure what happened, and because I was responding to a poster who seemed to feel his "problem" should be his alone, and because I see this lack of care and empathy in so many ways in peoples lives. ...because I think it's at epidemic levels here in the United States. [Lack of empathy for those not "like us."] ...for all those reasons - I thought it was incredibly important to highlight that lack of civility, honor, and empathy. I thought if one were to err on one side vs another - that in that case, I'd err on the side of being "too" accommodating, "too" empathetic, rather than not enough.
Was the harm from not having the talk greater than the harm that might have been done by glossing over victims of sexual violence? I really don't know. But I do know that by reading a lot of what is up-thread - that really caring about the sensitivities of the victims of sexual violence isn't, by any standard, universally in evidence here. [Along with respect for Women etc.]
Ergo, perhaps a good reason to push hard on the boundaries the other way.