That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge
They didn’t make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that “requires prior knowledge” – because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
Anyways, that’s just meta noise.
Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
You’re free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I’m free to judge that as incel behaviour.
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming and my assertion is that isn’t substantially different then assuming someone doesn’t know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don’t see the difference.
I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I’m specifically asking not to… That’s sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you’re by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
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.
Them:
You:
They didn’t make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that “requires prior knowledge” – because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
Anyways, that’s just meta noise.
You’re free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I’m free to judge that as incel behaviour.
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming and my assertion is that isn’t substantially different then assuming someone doesn’t know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don’t see the difference.
But you can’t callout a man for being misogynistically condescending to a woman. Got it.
I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Right, but you’ve also claimed it’s impossible to believe that’s happening without being a bigot.
Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I’m specifically asking not to… That’s sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you’re by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
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.