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?

But it doesn’t have to be more agree than disagree, it just has to be one poster plus ‘others’ agreeing, according to his own definition.

I think I’m too invested in this thread. I promised myself that if it came down to a definition of ‘others’ I’d leave and do some work. Yet here I am, arguing a boring point with strangers. In my defence I’m once again trapped under an ill baby with my phone for company.

So I guess we’re back to waiting for Sensimilla then.

Gunny, Lass et al - you can definitely be on my legal team, but I wasn't looking to make a legalistic definition - as they say in a certain pirates film: this is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Same as when a poster asks "AIBU?" If only one poster says "YABU", then it can probably be discounted; if lots of posters say "YABU" then they probably have a point, even if many others say "YANBU".

The explanation by DDD, to me, was perhaps not quite mansplaining, more one of those slightly uncomfortable moments where everyone’s talking and someone makes a throwaway comment, and then another person (maybe a man? ) comes along andanalyses the fuck out of it and proves why the original person was wrong, in a ‘actually it’s very interesting that you should think that, but actually it’s not quite right’ kind of way.
I’m assuming though that sensimilla isn’t an expert on the planets thing. If she is, it’s definitely mansplaining.
As it is, it’s just one of those situations where we all have to listen politely to the man until he’s finished and then go back to the original conversation. That’s how it appeared to me, anyway.

then another person (maybe a man? wink) comes along and analyses the fuck out of it and proves why the original person was wrong, in a ‘actually it’s very interesting that you should think that, but actually it’s not quite right’ kind of way.

But, I do that all the time.

And when I read his post it didn't even come across to me as saying that the pp was wrong. (maybe I should fine tune my reading skills)

The only mistake was to mention as a joke that he was a man, which I understand in the context of this thread, but it was really only asking for trouble, considering this is MN, the land of the sensitive and nit picking.

Just as we all politely "listen" (or skip over and ignore if we're not interested surely ) to any poster who maybe diverges away from the discussion we are interested in.

If we were all in a room talking, it would be quickly obvious from body language and interruptions whether everyone wanted to talk about celestial mechanics, and I'd actually have a dialogue with Sensi. I wouldn't force you to listen to me give a lecture on orbits, because that's no way to have a conversation. (And I am well aware of the evidence that men tend to talk over women in conversations, and try to be conscious about not doing it in real life).

Yy it was never going to go down well on this particular thread

but it was really only asking for trouble

Yep, it's a fine judgement how much self-deprecating self-awareness to show - some will interpret it as attention-seeking false humility, some as a light-hearted acknowledgement of what others might be thinking. I was never going to "win" either way.

You need a name change for these threads. Something gender neutral. Like "beige".

Tempting to name-change to BeigeBeigeBeige and praise my own posts, but I think you might see through that, Lweji.

I am a scientist/engineer and I am chartered

This is not my area of expertise (clearly)

I DO think dad is man-splaining. Because, it isn't his area of expertise either. It wouldn't be mansplaining if he had higher knowledge and was imparting that. But he doesn't, he has wiki-links. Plus, his tone was not conversational, but correctional. I could hardly believe the lack of self awareness, given the subject of the thread

It stands, that there is a formula for the distances of the planets from the sun (which I can't remember)

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

I think that's sarcy and patronizing. And I do think the original post, as you sort of conceded through the ironic smiley, was mansplaining.

I was being a bit sarky, but Sensi has now explained why she thought it was mansplaining, so I accept that and apologise.

You are still wrong about the formula, as the Wikipedia article shows how later discoveries of Neptune, Pluto and asteroids have undermined it.

Don't you think it is a bit dodgy that your response to the idea that she might know this stuff was to be sarcastic about the possibility, though?

I'm assuming the latter part of your post was just playful satire/baity fun.

ou are still wrong about the formula, as the Wikipedia article shows how later discoveries of Neptune, Pluto and asteroids have undermined it

No. I am not

Don't you think it is a bit dodgy that your response to the idea that she might know this stuff was to be sarcastic about the possibility, though?

No, for a simple reason: Sensi quoted the Titius-Bode law which I had never heard of, but within two minutes of googling it, I found the following text so my working assumption was that she didn't really know about this. And I didn't see why I should let an inaccurate statement go without challenging it, as women on MN also do.

When originally published, the law was approximately satisfied by all the known planets—Mercury through Saturn—with a gap between the fourth and fifth planets. It was regarded as interesting, but of no great importance until the discovery of Uranus in 1781, which happens to fit into the series. Based on this discovery, Bode urged a search for a fifth planet. Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt, was found at Bode's predicted position in 1801. Bode's law was then widely accepted until Neptune was discovered in 1846 and found not to satisfy the law. Simultaneously, the large number of asteroids discovered in the belt removed Ceres from the list of planets. Bode's law was discussed by the astronomer and logician Charles Sanders Peirce in 1898 as an example of fallacious reasoning.[4]

The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further. Although nowhere near its position as predicted by Bode's law, it was roughly at the position the law had predicted for Neptune. However, the subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt, and in particular of the object Eris, which is more massive than Pluto yet does not fit Bode's law, further discredited the formula.

my working assumption was that she didn't really know about this

Do some work on your working assumptions. Especially if you form them after two minutes of googling.

Sorry, Sensi, just stating "no I am not" when you've already admitted you are not an expert is not good enough. Saying you can't remember the formula is a bit disingenuous when you could perfectly recollect the names Titius and Bode, and those would lead you straight to a page with the formula stated at the top!

Do some work on your working assumptions. Especially if you form them after two minutes of googling.

Of course, next time I'll form a working assumption without googling at all, just based on my own opinion. We can't avoid making assumptions, so please tell me how I should have responded when Sensi posted "Titius-Bode" without further explanation?

Someone who spent two minutes googling with two of the key terms on which I know a lot would come back at me with several incorrect observations. I could even predict what they would be.

And you continue

The problem with this whole mansplaining thing in this case for example is its purely subjective. I don't see how you can prove on here either way? Although of course you can argue points of weight either way (endlessly if you wish).

How do we know 3D was sharing understanding on the subject was first aimed to "educated" Sensimilla's because she was a woman? Surely if you believe Sensimilla's answer is arguably incorrect/weak (maybe, maybe not as both are saying each other is wrong, I don't know this field) then you can argue the case? After all we don't know each other credentials and MN is packed with very educated and accomplished people. I just don't see how you can assume a counter argument and explanation of 3d's understanding was down to sex? Surely 3d you'd make the same argument if you knew 100% that the poster was male?

I really don't see how you can prove either way. Not to say mansplaining isn't a thing. I have gleefully watched a man trip up before in my old engineering field as he assumed my colleague was a system operator (50/50s sex mix) rather than a engineer (prob about 90% male trade at the time). She took him to school once he stopped explaining and knocked him down a peg or two. She was our most qualified expert for that system. But in this case (and many other cases of mansplaining that are loosely thrown around these days) I doubt it was and I would say little evidence to say the assumption of knowledge (correct or not) had anything to do with sex. However on such a weak basis to make the charge of mansplaining I think is indicative of a bias that see the sex first and foremost and adapts the narrative around sex not the content.

You could:
a) ask her what that is, if you're especially interested
b) leave it alone

Rather than seeing something you don't know anything about and shooting off to google to 'prove' people wrong on the assumption they don't know what they're talking about.

See, you do say things on this thread that make me think you're actually quite conscious of gender politics, conversation, mansplaining, etc. And I think (assume?) that you acknowledge that there are ways in which men can dominate or patronize without necessarily meaning to, and that you want to avoid this.

But if that's genuine, I think you should reconsider your rule that if you don't think it's mansplaining and a few other people agree, it can't be.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace agree with your point of etiquette. But women do this to others on here all the time. To do what 3d has done is very normal regardless of sex.

Seek - your example is too cryptic to comment on. Again, we all make assumptions, I found a Wikipedia article with the exact title of the precise law that Sensi had quoted, so it seemed a good basis for judgement (using my own knowledge - I'm not an expert, but I have a science background and did study some celestial mechanics in my degree).

It turns out my judgement was right.