Why was a word created to describe a man explaining something to a woman as if she is inferior in some way? There is already a word for that: patronizing. It even has the masculine Latin root. If you are being patronizing it means you are speaking to somebody in a way that suggests you don’t respect them. The only difference that I can see is that patronizing can work both ways; a man can behave in a patronizing way to a woman, and vice versa, whereas “mansplaining” only goes one direction. So why was the invention of this one-way word thought to be necessary? I suppose it was thought that mansplaining was more specific, encompassing speech that was only patronizing because a man was saying it to a woman. But if that is true, is there its opposite? Is it possible for a woman to say something that is patronizing only if she is saying it to a man?

One advantage to the word is that it cannot be reversed. It only goes in one direction, so a man who is accused of it has no recourse to perhaps labelling his opponent a hypocrite for using the same tactic, because the same tactic does not exist if the roles are reversed. A woman who claims she is being mansplained to is safe because she will never be accused of the same thing.

The word seems to also carry weight as a counterattack to criticism. Being patronizing is mistake enough, because it shows you are not taking the argument or the person seriously, but saying somebody is mansplaining doesn’t just attempt to invalidate the argument because of its tone, but to also invalidate the speaker because of his sex. It is a form of ad hominem attack because it does not refute the argument (in fact, it does not address the argument at all), but says that the person arguing is unqualified to make the argument because of his sex. Or, rather, he would only be qualified if his interlocutor was himself male, but because she is female he cannot make the same argument. Why? What about the sex of the participants makes a conversation, debate, argument, disagreement, or exchange of ideas invalid? It also seems to make it theoretically impossible for a man to know something that a woman does not, or, if he does, he cannot in good faith relate that knowledge without being patronizing. This further makes any exchange between sexes fraught with potential insult. And then, only in one direction.

I think this word has accomplished what its users have set out to do, and that is to weaken the ability of men to argue with women. A man who is accused of mansplaining is immediately wrong, because any attempt to validate his ideas is heaping fuel on his own funeral pyre: he can’t ever reverse the charge because “femsplaining” does not exist (cannot exist, apparently), and any attempt to defend himself makes him seem even more patronizing. And remember the ad hominem: the accusation is not an attack on his ideas, but on his identity, on his sex. It means that he could be the best debater in the world, but because he is a he then there is no way he could ever be in a position to speak to the woman on an equal footing. The sexes of the two people precludes an honest exchange of ideas, or, rather, only in one direction; a woman can debate in good faith with a man, but not vice versa. This word means a man can never win an argument with a woman; she need only claim he is mansplaining and find sanctuary in her perceived victimhood at the hands of her oppressor.

tl;dr - mansplaining is a sexist ad hominem attack

Can anyone see something that I am missing? I would like to know your thoughts. Thanks.