Mansplaining and Whitesplaining: or, Silence, White Male Hetero Satan

I recently became acquainted with the concept of "mansplaining." As I understand it, the term began as a way for feminists to describe a stereotypical situation in which a naïve, ignorant, or boorish man tries condescendingly to explain something to an intellectually superior woman. (Note: this is not bigotry, because Male Privilege.) Since its coining, though, the term has expanded as a means of invalidating any non-feminist opinion held by a man. If you have not been tutored in or have refused to accept the dogmas of a feminist worldview, then any objection you may voice to a feminist is necessarily ignorant and naïve. For example, suggestion that male brain chemistry, e.g. high levels of testosterone, rather than culture and privilege, is the cause of both male violence and male dynamism would be pooh-poohed on as flagrant mansplaining. Ditto on a rejection of Male Guilt because you have never oppressed a woman: the critical theory you-benefit-from-an-unfair-system-therefore-you're-guilty-too answer is the only right answer. If you've rejected this idea, either because you don't beleive that the system is as unfair as they say, or because you feel that it's just a rebranding of collective guilt, you're mansplaining. The same basic pattern goes for "Whitesplaining," "Christsplaining," or any other "explaining" from a non-leftist perspective (most tellingly, "rightsplaining").
This all boils down to intellectual and political orthodoxy, and the silencing of non-liberal opinions. Just like men are not allowed to question feminist opinions, a white person cannot cast aspersions on Michael Brown or condemn the lynch mob in Ferguson because of "White Privilege," straights can't go against orthodox opinions on homosexual issues, and so on. Conversely, a woman who goes against feminism is a stupid, brainwashed twit, conservative blacks are Uncle Toms, conservative gays are "chickens voting for KFC," etc.
The only real answer is a simple and unequivocal rejection of these ideas. The more we refuse to accept "white privilege," "male privilege," "mansplaining," etc., and the more we vocally out thes ideas as collectivist censorship and propaganda tools, the more they will be rightfully recognized by the public as leftist dog-whistle terms and not legitimate, much less revolutionary, ideas. As a good friend of mine was fond of saying, "Let collectivism burn in the light of day."