Turns out that Pagan mansplaining is quite a bit like other kinds of mansplaining. It consists of a “helpful” suggestion (aka known as a threat) that women must adopt the man’s viewpoint (in this case, described as “evolve”) or “perish.”
Who knows what motivated this bout of Pagan mansplaining? The “controversy” being discussed is several years old. But there’s no need to let that come between a privileged white man and his patriarchy-given right to mansplain.
To pre-answer questions:
First, if I have to define what kind of Pagan I am, I say “Witch,” and if I have to say what kind of Witch, I say “mostly Dianic,” but what I really like is something that I once read attributed to Cora Anderson: “I believe in trees and being sensible.”
Second, I wrote about this topic when it was current and indicated that I can see more than one side to this (to coin a phrase) circle. As I said there, I honor Z Budapest as an elder and am grateful for her books and many of her teachings. She, like, well, a whole, whole, whole lot of other people, has also said some things with which I disagree and used some terms that offend me. As she’s gotten older and has come under more strident attacks, she appears to have gotten worse about it.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the right of Pagan groups everywhere to define themselves as they like, to practice as makes them most comfortable, and to evolve their practices as they — not some outsider wading in with his penis and his privilege — see fit.
Mansplaining. It seems to cross religious lines.