To think gender alters the perception of what is said on MN?

[1DAD2KIDS]

I use a username that clearly identifies my gender (and is also my biological sex). Often I feel that if people assumed I was a woman their response would be different. Or if you swapped the genders around some people's responses would be completely different?

Making a correction is not mansplaining, though.

Mansplaining would be to tell me that the worm in the gut I posted earlier belongs to order Pseudophyllidae and that it differs from your typical taenidae by having bothria instead of suckers. Or giving me a wikilink about it. But I'd probably assume it was for the general pp.

Making a correction by itself isn’t mansplaining, no.

I didn’t realise chartered wasn’t used for science. Chastened probably makes more sense.

Pumper - I think what you are doing is worse than mansplaining, which is presuming to know what another poster was thinking, and speaking on her behalf. You have made all kinds of assertions about Sensi that are little more than speculation.

I agree with you that we are going to keep disagreeing so I'll leave that there.

Way back near the start of the thread, I said if one person accuses me of mansplaining and no one agrees, then I tend to conclude that they are mistaken. If others say they think I was mansplaining then I'll take that on board. But that's enough from me on this particular tangent; I'll let the thread get back to its original topic...

I didn’t realise chartered wasn’t used for science. Chastened probably makes more sense.

As I said, your assertions are based on speculation.

I saw that - I take it you missed AssasinatedBeauty’s response?

Here you go:

*AssassinatedBeauty

It was a clearly rhetorical question given the rest of her post, not asking how scientifically it was possible, but pondering on whether there's some divine intervention in the universe. I thought that was fairly obvious. Then DadDadDad comes in, misses the whole nature of the post, assumes that she doesn't know anything about the science, and throws a couple of Googled links at her that anyone could have found in a moment's search. How is it not mansplaining?!*

Ok, fair enough. You and Assassinated have based your claim of mansplaining on the assumption that actually Sensi was already aware of this science.

If Sensimilla can confirm that she was knowledgeable on orbital mechanics and knew that the Titius-Bode law had been debunked long ago, then I will concede that I was mansplaining.

Have we established whether Sensimilla our right or wrong? And what she meant by being chartered? It'll make a big difference as you whether any mansplaining went on or not

Right, so two posters ISN’T enough then? Gotcha.

Guess we’ll just wait and see if Sensimilla comes back then, with a complete run down of her understanding of orbital mechanics.

Chartered’ is a higher qualification in most professions - you can be a chartered engineer for example or a chartered teacher or a chartered librarian or a chartered solicitor. So I understood Sensimilla’s post to mean she was chartered in her field of unnamed science

As far as I am aware a chartered legal executive is a paralegal, not a solicitor.

A chartered legal executive can work in a legal office and has the option to later qualify as a solicitor through further vocational training. As a fully qualified solicitor with a law degree and the post graduate training I take strong exception to being told a chartered legal executive has a higher professional standing than me.

A legal executive might later qualify and who knows they might be brilliant but they certainly do not hold a higher qualification than graduate solicitors.

I’m sorry Lass. I’m chartered in my profession and chartered to us is definitely a higher qualification, in that you do it post-masters. I didn’t realise it was different if you’re a solicitor.

I was wrong about that. I’m genuinely sorry for any offence caused.

In fact, for anyone coming along to this thread, please disregard my definition of chartered since it’s obviously not correct in all cases.

I was wrong, I should have checked first.

In fact, for anyone coming along to this thread, please disregard my definition of chartered since it’s obviously not correct in all cases.

I was wrong, I should have checked first.

Apology noted.

Right, so two posters ISN’T enough then? Gotcha

What about the 3 posters who have said he wasn't?

I’m using his own definition, he didn’t say anything about needing more people to disagree than agree.

His own definition is that of several posters agree. You have 2, he has 3

This is his definition:

Way back near the start of the thread, I said if one person accuses me of mansplaining and no one agrees, then I tend to conclude that they are mistaken. If others say they think I was mansplaining then I'll take that on board. But that's enough from me on this particular tangent; I'll let the thread get back to its original topic...

...which doesn’t say anything about the balance having to be in his favour. Just if someone agrees with the mansplaining allegation.

If others say they think I was mansplaining then I'll take that on board.

Is were going to split hairs then he used "others", you have one other

Yes, and then he posted this:

*Ok, fair enough. You and Assassinated have based your claim of mansplaining on the assumption that actually Sensi was already aware of this science.

If Sensimilla can confirm that she was knowledgeable on orbital mechanics and knew that the Titius-Bode law had been debunked long ago, then I will concede that I was mansplaining.*

So now we’re waiting for Sensimilla to come back.

• so how many does ‘others’ refer to? If someone else agrees with me so there’s three of us?

Three all, at the moment it's a draw

Lewji, Bore of Whabylon do not think D3 was mansplaining I think you and Assinated Beauty do.

Oh and obviously I didn't think he was.

Just if someone agrees with the mansplaining allegation

Stil does not make it right.

Wow - thanks for all the dissection of my words! It's not as crude as a simple vote. It's a question of weighing all the evidence: my own intention, the response of the alleged mansplainee (!), and then whether more than one person says it's mansplaining.

I'm basically saying if Sensi tells me that she knew this stuff and it was mansplaining, then I'll accept it was, even if the majority say it wasn't.

I do accept that Sensi might not have been inviting a discussion on the science of orbits, so I might have missed the purpose of her mentioning it (I'm not sure what her purpose was), but that doesn't of itself make my comments mansplaining.