Something that Natalie Reed touched on, is the fact that straight, white, cis men are seen as the “[default]“(https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial). This cultural message leads some male skeptics, who should really know better, to have internalized an idea that minorities have biases (because, obviously, they’re different!) and they do not. I think this is the biggest factor leading to what’s come to be called “mansplaining“. (When you think about it, “[mansplaining]”(https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain) is not much different from what many skeptics and atheists do all the time when talk to theists, climate change deniers, creationists, anti-vaxers, etc. The difference here is that they aren’t really talkinmg facts, they’re often talking feelings – filtered through bias.) As a student of history I’ve learned the lesson all historians have to get really quick: Everyone is biased.
It’s fashionable in atheist and especially skeptic circles to aspire to eliminate or suppress our biases, but is that something we should or are even capable of doing? Would a better approach be to acknowledge our own biases and try to work out what’s happening when we interact with people from different backgrounds through listening and friendly discussion?