I wish people would leave these terms out. It takes me from an emphatic reader to a reader who is suspicious about a hidden agenda. "I was interrupted and patronized" suffices.
That is highly salient to her experience.
Point being, in technical roles and roles where you interact with technical people, you will undoubtedly have moments where you feel like information is being disseminated in a condescending fashion. Context is key here as it would be unfair to conflate the general 'prickliness' of many engineers with misogyny.
The second is that those terms are untouchable in a sense. I skimmed it a bit and couldn't find anything more specific than using those terms. Unfortunately, that's generally acceptable today because questioning whether those terms actually apply gets an immediate response claiming that you are victim blaming. It cheapens the discourse to me, because the central premise of the article is held as unquestionable.
Then again, perhaps this category of writing just isn't for me. I don't disagree that her feelings are salient to her experience; but my interest isn't really in her experiences, it's in the knowledge that we can derive from her experiences. I.e. can her experiences reveal some insight into sexism amongst tech companies, or how victims are treated? However without a basis in objective facts, I fear there's not much knowledge to derive beyond her experiences in and of themselves.
Just because someone shares their perspective on a personal experience they had doesn't mean it's an invitation, and doesn't mean they want or need any input.
Ironically (or maybe not), he's recursively "mansplanined" why "mansplaining" is a term that makes him feel insecure. And I say insecure because of the false dichotomy between having empathy and being "suspicious about a hidden agenda" -- that screams "I feel threatened, so let me explain to you why your approach is wrong".