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.
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.