null

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.

I've arrived.

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?