@saper It is not a logical consequence because it is not supposed to be so ?
The first one is explaining that what you're saying has no meaning in that context, the next one is saying that the theory on which the first sentence is based on is, to some extent, interesting because it seems true.

Depends on how you define "proved". Moreover, the concept isn't a theory, it's a tool to understand how sexism works, it's a thing you can actually read in Bourdieu's book (for instance). Maybe not "proved", but it doesn't really need to be.

@saper The idea of such a tool is not to be true, nor proved, the idea is that it allows you to understand some phenomenon you can actually see. If it does, and that nothing is proving the opposite, thereofre it is considered as true. The whole idea of science.

@Mawloc At least there needs to be a chain of consistent statements. I'll assume 500 chars is not enough to explain it.

@saper Obviously, and it's a funny because oppositional sexism does have those statements. Indeed, it will need you to read Bourdieu's "La domination masculine" and Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl", but it seems that you have plenty of time so I believe you will !
It might require some knowledge in sociology as well, but I'm sure you have it !
These are good books, don't hesitate !