I don’t think those are therapists you’ve been seeing…

Correct

Correct about what, exactly? This?

Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.

Because if so, then you’ve contradicted yourself.

misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is

So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn’t mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.

And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.

Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you’re incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.

sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.

If it wasn’t gendered, then it wouldn’t be misogynistic and therefore wouldn’t be mansplaining. It’s a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.

Also, what’s femsplaining?

Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.

Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.

I’ve asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.

I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?

My point was obviously that you shouldn’t have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.

You still dodged the question

No I didn’t.

why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist

I don’t think that.

Correct.

Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.

And as we’ve established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.

You finally got there!

Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?

You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452

Who does the math?

if you know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.

Okay, so if the man is “probably” being misogynistic, that’s enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?

You did not.

And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!

An incorrectly used one, sure.

Wrong. I haven’t added anything, just followed your reasoning.

Let’s walk through it:

Scenario: A woman believes a man is being misogynistic towards her.

Your assessment: She can’t actually know that he’s intending to be misogynistic. Therefore she is making an assumption that it’s based on sex/gender. By doing that, she is being bigoted/sexist/misandrous.

Based on your words:

That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex

requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming

How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?

They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.

it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex

I’ve asked you to explain how this somehow doesn’t follow, but all you can do is accuse me of being obtuse, or adding in random shit.

So again, the sound conclusion of your logic is: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.

As for this:

still avoiding two simple questions

I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.

We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.

Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.

And then added you do not think a woman can mansplain which negates any argument you have that it isn’t sexist.

Only if misogyny isn’t sexist.

Is calling someone a hard r because of my perception and their race in fact racist?

Calling someone a hard r is almost always racist.

How is using a term that is specifically and explicitly sexist not in fact sexist.

You’ve failed to demonstrate that it is “specifically and explicitly sexist”.

How do you attach it to condescension?

You don’t – hence why I’ve repeatedly stated it’s defined as “misogynistic condescension” and not merely “condescension”.

The misogyny is the modifier.

Why do you even assume they see anyone as a woman at all?

The only way for you to square this up is to either concede that you think any woman who believes a man is being misogynist towards them is herself being misandrous – or that misogyny and misandry don’t exist at all.

Which is it?

How do you separate sex/gender from misogyny?

Ah okay, so you wanted to clarify that the condescension part is irrelevant.

Your actual stance is: Any women who believes a man is being misogynistic towards them is actually being misandrous herself.

Still a wild stance to hold publicly, but thanks for clarifying.

If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you’re in fact a bigot.

This applies to literally every social interaction, including deciding that someone is being condescending.

So I repeat:

How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?

Make it make sense.

A woman can mansplain correct?

I’d probably say no, but I could see a semantic argument for it.

If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you’re in fact a bigot.

This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.

I’m not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.

What questions have I not answered?

What you’re reading as obtuse is me taking what you’re saying at face-value.

I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know

So then why did you need to lead us around this loop? We already established your view: Any woman who believes that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her is a bigot herself. Wild opinion to hold publicly, but you do you.

What claim?

Me:

And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?

You:

To know them.

That claim.

they can say a person is condescending to them

How? Mind-reading?

How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?

Make it make sense. Or deflect by calling me obtuse. Up to you.

You tell me! You were the one who asserted that the only way a woman can believe a man is being misogynistically condescending and not herself be a bigot is for her to “know” that he is.

I granted you that, but sure, if you want to dissect your own claims, let’s do it.

Tell me, how can a women know that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her?

Just to be sure I understand your question, you’re asking how a woman knowing they’re being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?

That’s your real question?

I mean, even if you think you know them, that’s still an assumption.

But let’s grant you that, because congratulations, you’ve answered your own question! That’s exactly how you can use the term “mansplaining” without being a bigot. By knowing that that’s what they are doing.

And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?

at that point you might as well use regular hashes to verify the integrity of your video

Generated by what authority, though?