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.
You’re catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It’s not is it? It’s just bigotry.
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?
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?
You’re being obtuse. I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you’re saying it’s not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven’t made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can’t, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it’s based on either parties sex is sexist. You’ve met a condescending asshole and decided it’s because of their sex, that’s sexist.
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.
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.
A woman can mansplain correct? If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you’re in fact a bigot. I’m not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
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.
You’re catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It’s not is it? It’s just bigotry.
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?
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.
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?
You’re being obtuse. I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you’re saying it’s not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven’t made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can’t, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it’s based on either parties sex is sexist. You’ve met a condescending asshole and decided it’s because of their sex, that’s sexist.
What you’re reading as obtuse is me taking what you’re saying at face-value.
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.
Me:
You:
That claim.
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.
Not at all.
Simple and applies to most bigoted statements.
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.
A woman can mansplain correct? If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you’re in fact a bigot. I’m not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
This applies to literally every social interaction, including deciding that someone is being condescending.
So I repeat:
Make it make sense.
I’d probably say no, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
What questions have I not answered?