Which of course is impossible because the sex of the person who uses/states an argument is the most substantive part, nothing else matters. Thus dismissing a person's argument based only on their sex is just right.
/s
Calling someone's comment "mansplaining" is the mirror image of asking to see "the man in charge"; it's dismissal based on the sex of the person being addressed.
Here we have a straight white male telling a woman she's wrong about her experience. I don't subscribe to identity politics, but if you do - there's a fishy smell here.
Of course the logical thing is to evaluate all ideas for their merit. But that's not what we're doing here.
Can't we address it like "here's a person telling a person they're wrong about the inferences they're making based on their reported experiences" and attack anything substantive rather than getting hung up on the sex of each person?
I thought that was what we were trying to do here.
Unfortunately that's not how identity politics works. The whole point is that your sexual anatomy can disqualify you from having an opinion - which really seems to be the crux of this whole debacle. If you're a man who agrees with identity politics then it's because you're intelligent and compassionate. But if you disagree.. Then it's time to check your privilege.
The irony here is tptacek (a man) is out to explain why this woman is wrong - in order to help women.