system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The term "mansplaining" is overtly sexist.

This argument is stupid and doesn't hold water, primarily because it's used to deflect an argument by way of making it a gendered issue. And to me, that's sexist and dismissive of any type of dissent. 

If a male or female makes a valid point regarding the discussion at hand that rubs the other the wrong way, reducing an argument to gender because one doesn't want to continue talking is sexist and cowardly; and the sword slices both ways. The dismissal of women's thoughts and opinions based solely on the fact that they're women is just as harmful and stupid.

If you are in a discussion and you don't agree, just say you disagree. If you don't want to continue talking about it, say you don't want to continue talking about it. It's not guaranteed to go your way, but stand your ground and move on without assigning "gender roles" to opinions solely because of the gender of the other person. 

That aside, aren't status-quo "gender roles" a concept that many people are trying to move away from, yet allow terms like "mansplaining" to continue? Seems to be playing into the patriarchy by relying on old and outdated gender role. Asking for a friend. 

Gender should not be a means of disapproval for opposing views, nor should it be a shield for one's opinion or presentation of facts.
gpt
The term "mansplaining" is pointing to the personal expertise of the speaker (or lack thereof).

The correctness of an argument does not depend on who voiced it. However, people without any experience in a subject tend to speak accurate claims less often than those who do.

When women voice their personal experience of discrimination day-to-day, and a guy dismisses it because he doesn't see that kind of discrimination, he is speaking outside of his expertise.