I’m just applying your idea that ‘dude’ is gender neutral to the world we live in. It isn’t you agreed it isn’t, except in this one specific context.
Just like the ‘dude is gender neutral’ homophobic guys get upset when I ask how many dude they’ve had sex with, you’re doing the same thing. Sometimes it’s fun
I agreed it was malleable. You see how I mentioned us using he/him as a gender neutral term, and then stopped because it was obviously gendered? Dude is also obviously gendered.
Dude was originally an insult to men. Guess we can’t call men dudes anymore either, huh?
Ok? I’d like the etymology of dude though. What makes you think I’d go to bat for using the word dude? But men can reclaim words used to insult them if they want, I’ve been consistent on that.
Nah, just trying to get you to introspect. Its hard to do, ask me how I know.
Dude is obviously gendered right? We both agreed. You have argued that in one context it isn’t. Similar to how he/him was argued to be gender neutral for instruction/operator manuals, but he/him is uncontroversially understood to be gendered now. We can introspect, and learn or dig in and have out ideas reflected back at us.
Twice you’ve replied with nothing to say? Make a point or not.
Every one has agreed dude is a gendered term in every context[1] but this one. We have learned this lesson before with he/him in instruction manuals[2].
This was precisely the introspection I already did to come to this conclusion. So far a bunch of people have gotten upset at having their own point reflected back at them, like I said they would.
Dude is gender neutral? You’d call a trans woman dude? Well no. It’s used in a gender neutral context so it’s gender neutral? So was he/him you really think he/him is gender neutral? Well no.
I’ll make it real easy: in the before times we used he/him as a default term to reference people, then we realised he/him is a gendered term and not suitable as a default way to reference people [2]. Fast forward to the now time: some people use dude as a default term, but now people are learning dude is a gendered term[1]…
Some people anyway, my dad is still stuck heading every letter with “dear sir” and gets real upset when you point out how dated it is. Then again, he unironically quoted a nazi pedophile so I’m quite happy being at odds with him.
The introspection is used to understand the source for he/him being the default is the same as dude.
I agree. Encouraging someone to introspect and rethink is better than not. All I can do is present that we’ve learned this lesson before with he/him as a default term and reflect their own ideas back to them.
I’m just applying your idea that ‘dude’ is gender neutral to the world we live in. It isn’t you agreed it isn’t, except in this one specific context.
Just like the ‘dude is gender neutral’ homophobic guys get upset when I ask how many dude they’ve had sex with, you’re doing the same thing. Sometimes it’s fun
You’re being weird about what was intended to be an uplifting comment about the malleability of language.
Dude was originally an insult to men. Guess we can’t call men dudes anymore either, huh?
I agreed it was malleable. You see how I mentioned us using he/him as a gender neutral term, and then stopped because it was obviously gendered? Dude is also obviously gendered.
Ok? I’d like the etymology of dude though. What makes you think I’d go to bat for using the word dude? But men can reclaim words used to insult them if they want, I’ve been consistent on that.
Pretty sure you’ve been trying to trap me in some kind of a gotcha but ok.
Be a dude or don’t, I don’t care. It’d wouldn’t be very dudelike of me to judge you either way
Nah, just trying to get you to introspect. Its hard to do, ask me how I know.
Dude is obviously gendered right? We both agreed. You have argued that in one context it isn’t. Similar to how he/him was argued to be gender neutral for instruction/operator manuals, but he/him is uncontroversially understood to be gendered now. We can introspect, and learn or dig in and have out ideas reflected back at us.
You should probably have a good long think about this right now.
Twice you’ve replied with nothing to say? Make a point or not.
Every one has agreed dude is a gendered term in every context[1] but this one. We have learned this lesson before with he/him in instruction manuals[2].
This was precisely the introspection I already did to come to this conclusion. So far a bunch of people have gotten upset at having their own point reflected back at them, like I said they would.
Dude is gender neutral? You’d call a trans woman dude? Well no. It’s used in a gender neutral context so it’s gender neutral? So was he/him you really think he/him is gender neutral? Well no.
I’ll make it real easy: in the before times we used he/him as a default term to reference people, then we realised he/him is a gendered term and not suitable as a default way to reference people [2]. Fast forward to the now time: some people use dude as a default term, but now people are learning dude is a gendered term[1]…
Some people anyway, my dad is still stuck heading every letter with “dear sir” and gets real upset when you point out how dated it is. Then again, he unironically quoted a nazi pedophile so I’m quite happy being at odds with him.
The introspection is used to understand the source for he/him being the default is the same as dude.
I beg of you, go touch grass and introspect…
You can encourage someone to introspect or rethink their opinions but you cannot expect them to always reach the same conclusions that you have.
I agree. Encouraging someone to introspect and rethink is better than not. All I can do is present that we’ve learned this lesson before with he/him as a default term and reflect their own ideas back to them.