Well if gender is varied so that a female can just as easily be a mansplainer as male,
they can't. it makes no sense to say that a woman can assume male incompetence on a topic because he's lower on a power gradient.
The thought police have no jurisdiction over what I can or cannot say. They are concerned with avoiding offence, without realising the far greater offence of limiting or controlling my freedom of speech. The First Amendment is a wonderful piece of legislation and long may it reign.
considering that I just explained to you yesterday how your Freedom of Speech/First Amendment rights are in no danger whatsoever, I now officially accuse you o JAQing off, since you do not meaningfully engage with answers given to you. Also, absolutely no one cares what you think. Only how those thoughts affect eople once they leave your head through your mouth or fingertips. so knock off the "thoughtpolice" bullshit.
This is never going to stop. It has been going on now for over fifteen months and it is relentless.
you declare something impossible because it's been going on for slightly more than a year? you really need to look into the history of social movements. Most of them needed well over 60 years to become successful, and the violence/harassment/etc. was always worst just towards the end; and then it faded.
Unless legislation is brought in to regulate the net or the parties involved agree to end it all it will go on ad infinitum.
'Reverse sexism' I oppose because it implies that all sexism was male to female in the first place.
sexism (and racism, etc.) as understood by social justice and sociology, sexism = prejudice + systemic discrimination. IOW, sexism is systemic disadvantage based on gender, and it disadvantages women in relation to men, and both men and women participate in this. In that sense, sexism against men exists only as a means to maintain the gender-hierarchy.
that mansplaining implies (as a male - I apologize for my accident of birth) that I am incapable of having an interaction with a female without oppressing or demeaning her.
then you don't understand what the word means, and are committing the same mistake already explained at the beginning of this thread.
Why should they be offended if it is true?
people are offended by the truth all the time, since truth may force them to re-examine their self-image and forcd them to actually put some effort into not promoting the kyriarchy.
- - - - -
Why is jargon that immediately puts those not already familiar with the term on the defensive desirable?
as if there is jargon that doesn't do this? attacking words is simply more convenient than engaging with the ideas, so that's what happens. but there's really no way to label phenomena related to power gradients without getting someone from the top of the gradient to whine about people stereotyping them or being mean to them.