Most of it.

Or conversely, a lot of it can be explained without having to resort to category theory or similarly dense terminology.

I've found that Mathematicians like to come up with the most general, tersest definitions possible, where every symbol is overloaded with layer upon layer of meaning.

You end up with language that looks like:

    a = b c 

For some absurd percentage of the statements. Sometimes the equal sign is an arrow, and the various symbols have superscripts and subscripts on them, but all meaning is lost unless you read the text, which then becomes an exponentially expanding set of hyperlinks to definitions that you need to unpack the definitions.

This is never useful as a method of pedagogy, yet this is about the only type of content you will ever find online in places like Wikipedia or nLab.

Any attempt to clarify with an example is resisted, because it's not "general", or "not the definition" of the concept. In the end, all practicality is erased, leaving definitions so pure that they could be referring to almost anything.