I'd like to give some clarification on what Sexism actually is, especially in regards to PAX.

According to Wikipedia, the general definition of sexism is this:

"Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another."

Intrinsically related are prejudice:

"Prejudice, or bigotry, is an affective feeling towards a person or group member based solely on that person's group membership. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, feelings towards people or a person because of their sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on that person's perceived group membership."

And discrimination:

"In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction towards, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include age, colour, convictions for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended, disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, genetic characteristics, marital status, nationality, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Discrimination consists of treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated". It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on illogical or irrational decision making."

So let's tie this in with PAX. People have claimed the event was sexist. However, if we look at the definitions of prejudice and discrimination, we start to see where this unravels. First off, it wasn't discrimination, because as we see from the general definition, actual discrimination is based on illogical or irrational decision making. The decision to limit male access to the female recruitment panel and Q&A for a few hours was not irrational or illogical. It had a distinct, specific goal in mind for why men had to be excluded, and that was so that women could have an open and honest talk with other women in the industry without the intimidation or the self-constructed censorship that may occur if men are present. In the same way that you might not geek out with your mom and dad about that awesome game you played where you got a pentakill or in the way that you might control your level of geek out when around someone you're interested in who you might perceive to judge you on your geekiness, this is what I'm talking about here - everyone self censors around people we know don't share the same mindset or strangers we're uncertain about or when we think we may be judged by others on what we're about to say. Women interested in the tech industry might not ask the real questions they want to ask if they think men there will judge them, and the Rioters giving the panel might not give the answers they want to give if they think they might hurt the feelings or make the room awkward when discussing how men have treated them. This is why the panel required no males, it was to foster an environment where open conversation could be had between women. This is also why it's not discrimination, it was not done with express ill will towards men, nor was the reason to exclude based on irrational or illogical thought.

In that vein, it wasn't prejudiced either for the same reasons. There was no ill will towards men in restricting male access to this event. The event, again, was intended to foster open dialogue for women interested in the industry to get honest answers, and it was not intended for men. To have a prejudice, there needs to be some sort of emotion attached to the reasoning behind why you're choosing to change your behaviors towards certain people. That emotion was not present - the reason to exclude men was based on the need for open, uncensored dialogue between women that can't occur when males are present because of the social dynamics that occur. The event, therefore, was not prejudiced against men.

So in short, the event was not sexist because the reasoning why men were excluded was not based on any intrinsic emotion or feelings of superiority. It was done solely to foster a specific dialogue environment, nothing more. The reality of it was, it was no different than having an age restriction, a height restriction, a wardrobe restriction, or any other kind of access restriction that we put up with in day to day life that doesn't bother us in the slightest. I know a lot of people may find this difficult to digest because most people are prone to make sweeping conclusions about things, but something can exclude others and not be discriminatory or sexist. It takes a little thinking to understand this, and I know some people here are so blinded by anger that they are unable to do so, but the event wasn't sexist, discriminatory, or prejudiced. It had a goal, it required a certain environment to achieve that goal. It probably shouldn't have been so impromptu to the point where it surprised people who were unaware, I agree with that, but I don't believe there was any ill intent or malicious actions involved in the reasons behind restricting male access to this event.