I'm find to try one last time, please try to be charitable and assume I have an argument

Language shapes how you think. Putting a label on something primes you to perceive it. From colors to types of waves to types of snow to types of clouds, language changes how you perceive things.

So you create a word that means a person of this gender is looking down on me and explaining something I already know. There's no other words as a counterpoint - this is a unique type of negative experience

People explaining things you already know is a totally normal thing, it's always annoying, but it is necessary. You can't have an intellectual discussion without making sure you're starting on the same page

It also has a second necessary component, misogyny. It's wrapped up in the concept. And if someone is bigoted towards you, why would you even try to hear them out?

But that's an internal state on their part. You can only really judge that from the outside if they display a pattern of misogyny, or if they self report.

So if you're feeling annoyed, or you feel like you're being underestimated, there's a pattern your mind can match against. It's a mental shortcut, and humans love mental shortcuts

But this is an antisocial shortcut. The moment you the it, the arguments don't matter. The other person's meaning doesn't matter, because you've decided they're prejudiced.

And to flip it around, what benefit does this grant? Being primed to spot misogynists early?

But there's a million other reasons why they might be explaining something you already know, even why they might look down on you until you prove yourself.

I think this shouldn't have a short form for easy recognition. I think it's harmful to good faith discourse

And to tie the bow on this, the original post is not mansplaining by any metric. It's a specific form of dry humor, an account called notkenm was widely shared for this form of pedantic humor. The account here is kev, who is not ken m