That was a theory you put forward, but it’s a strawman.

This has nothing to do with a strawman. It's literally an educated guess based on the limited information available.

• Most of them look foreigners (from SE Asia specifically)
• People who would get jobs very easy wouldn't spend 600$ for a conference not meant for them just to piss off people, with realistically extremely low chances to get anything out of it.

felt entitled to lie their way into a space that isn’t meant for them, to the point where they dominated the event

I am not sure how many of those lied. Some did, and that is shitty, but the event is technically open to men too, men have always participated to that event, apparently. See for example this from 2017. So I am not even sure that lying was a determining factor.

I’ve been desperate, and I used the resources open to me. I didn’t lie to access resources I wasn’t entitled to.

You will forgive me, but your personal anecdote in a completely different context doesn't count as a solid argument.

safe places

You are talking about a conference event with hundreds of thousands of attendees, sponsored by some of the biggest, and evil, companies on the planet...apologies, but this rhetoric of a safe space sounds out of place for this particular example. Also, there is no point to use this personal moral arguments, because they are useless. "If you would understand desperation/risk of deportation/whatever then..." is not an argument for anything. I don't know what you understand or don't, let's stick to the opinions we actually support?

Because you don’t understand, your opinion and view isn’t as relevant.

This is your tautology, where you say that if A then B, and then B then C, but A is your pure assumption. Ex falso quodlibet, you can build any argument this way.