Your take is very precise. I would add if you weren’t anonymous.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. While I understand the fediverse well-enough, I don’t use the social media aspects of Lemmy enough to know how they work.

As for the rest of your comment, I’m not really sure I am understanding what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify for me? Are you talking about the word ‘mansplain’, the concept the word is meant to explain, how those two ideas relate, or something else entirely?

For me, mansplaining just looks like a man explaining. That’s it. To assume anything more is an insult of language in my view. It just gives an air of people being superior by knowing context which I think is not right.

What do you mean? That the word “mansplain” doesn’t sufficiently explain its entire meaning and definition, and therefore is an insult to language? That the word “mansplain” carries a negative connotation about the speaker which may or may not be provable from the rest of the context it is used in?

Well, if a thing is extremely difficult to understand, the correct response is not to understand it and claim that one is capable, the correct response it to bypass it and choose the easier path. For me, assuming this context is wrong. Language is just to convey information and I would assume mansplain as nothing more than a man explaining.

Sincerely, I do not understand what you are trying to say here enough to say if I agree or disagree.