Such terms were developed as a type of intellectual weapon, in principle to address a perceived power imbalance. Unfortunately, they do so by committing the same sin they claim to be addressing, which argues a zero sum game approach to personal discourse. There is no fair ground on which to arbitrate or resolve any specific personal claims we have against one another. We can only even the scales by deligitimizing you in turn. Which is also a very cynical way to approach someone else’s arguments. Perhaps they are “mansplaining”, perhaps they aren’t. There’s at least some chance that that’s not how they concieve of their own words and motivations. And if it isn’t, then they might be open to discussion and testing, to see if their statements and attitudes live up to their own claims of legitimacy.

Because they at least claim not to be making mere statements of prejudice and power manipulation, that means the door is open for testing. It leaves open the possibility of one or the other person needing to and being able to surrender their point. But if you slap a designation on someone’s statements that answers the question of the moral and cognitive value of what they have to say right up front, then there’s nowhere to go.

They can either admit their own guilt and the illigitimacy of what they have to say and surrender, not only their point but their identity, or they can fight you to force their personal claims over yours. That’s a not a great range of choices. It might be an acceptable way to win for some, although for many it might not be what they actually wanted (they might have actually thought they had a thought that could be seen and understood and recognized independently, not merely an action point of personal power and propaganda). It definitely isn’t what most people would consider an acceptable path to losing an argument.

But what other options are there? The moral and cognitive content of their point was reduced to a question of identity. That means that either victory or loss can only be understood as a function of or action upon that identity. You’re consenting to either oppression or being oppressed. And depending on what the prevailing moral attitude is of your society (winners take all, or blessed are the oppressed for theirs is the moral high ground), the moral and cognitive value of you and your thoughts and actions will be predetermined by your classifications (many of which you will not have been in charge of determining, and few of which will enable and actualize you as an individual, whether you fight them or embrace them). People will essentially be morally obligated to figurative or literal genocide, either against others or against themselves, whoever is on the losing end of the current cultural value rubric.

It is such a small thing to use such terms. It’s such a small turn. A turn from welcoming the words and actions of others and meeting them where they claim to stand, to condemning both sides to an inherent oppositional relationship where one only prevails at the expense of the other, and the only real question is who we judge as a class deserves to prevail. This sort of approach is a problem no matter who does it.

Not that everyone is completely right that they’re not simply pushing their own prejudices; in fact we all are out there with our own biases, tastes, preferences, our own ideas of what really is important or what matters most or what’s really at stake. But if we decide ahead of time not to take people at their word, if we don’t have at least a hopeful, optimistic epistemology, then there’s really very little hope for understanding in our discussions. In this case, it’s the cynicism that is the real risk. Discussion, understanding, negotiation, compromise, these are functions of relationship. And relationships cannot survive cynicism.