The topic is the ambiguity of things and their acceptance. In other words, tolerance of ambiguity. It is about the ability to tolerate and initially accept a contradictory situation or one that cannot be clearly categorized. On the other hand, there is unambiguity: clear facts and situations that we can name and categorize, which is very convenient for us. This is why we often tend not to tolerate situations in which there is ambiguity. When it comes to structural discrimination, we encounter ambiguity very often. Let's take the topic of mansplaining, because from a feminist point of view, a recurring phenomenon in our culture of debate is clearly evident here. The boundaries of mansplaining are fluid and difficult to define. It's about looking at the situation sensitively and recognizing signals. If an explanation takes place at eye level and is desired, it is not mansplaining. But eye level is not a defined quantity, and the same explanation can be perceived as discriminatory in other circumstances. There is no clear right and wrong, as judgment varies depending on the circumstances. It is about recognizing and enduring this ambiguity. It seems to be very important to recognize and accept ambiguity as part of the complexity of our social interactions. Ambiguity does not relativize; it just requires a more complex approach.