422
2026-06-01 (discuss.online)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/cyanideandhappiness@discuss.online
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

🔗

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -17 points 5 months ago (21 children)

With strangers? Probably not unless I'm passing a blunt.

Why not? Why the hesitancy?

I wouldn't hesitate to call a trans person a person, stranger, friend, acquaintance, buddy, or any number of gender neutral terms. If they're a trans man I wouldn't hesitate to call them dude.

But you, you use dude, you profess to believe that it's a gender neutral term. You wouldn't use it for a trans woman without hesitation? That something to introspect over. Same as you could possibly introspect why you believe dude is a gendered term in all cases, but conveniently not this one. Use dude how you like, just be honest about it.

I'm not reclaiming it. I'm encouraging non-males to use it because it's fun.

This you?

I stand by that dude is gender neutral if for no other reason than to reclaim it as such.

I'm not sure it's for men to reclaim gendered words or encourage non-men to reclaim specific words for my own usage. For the same reason for the same reason I don't think straight people should encourage queer folk to reclaim words to make me more comfortable about using them. Or non white folk should reclaim race words so I can use them. Can you see why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Your attempts to psychoanalyze me are falling flat when this is a conversation I've had dozens of times with both men and women. I'm an art school graduate who took a genders studies class that literally discussed the neutralization of vocatives like dude and man

    You're stuck on the idea that I go around calling everyone dude when I never said that. Are you going around saying "thanks, buddy" to every cashier? Didn't think so.

    Context, tone, and relationships matter. I'm pretty sure if I tripped and instinctually said "thanks dude" or "thanks man" when a trans woman helped me up, it'd be pretty obvious I'm not being a chud. If I said it with a scowl, that'd be a different story

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nah, just trying to get you to introspect. Its hard to do, ask me how I know.

    You should probably have a good long think about this right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    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...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You can encourage someone to introspect or rethink their opinions but you cannot expect them to always reach the same conclusions that you have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    calm down

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago*

    Probably a good idea.

    But it's fun to make people live/confront their ideas: Dude is gender neutral. Your mum is a dude? Your wife? You don't believe dude is gender neutral at all, you just don't want to introspect about your usage of dude.

    Dude is gender neutral because we used it as such. We used he/him as gender neutral you believe he/him is gender neutral? You don't believe that he/him is gender neutral, you just don't want to introspect about your usage of dude.

    Not you specifically, just examples.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Ya know, if I was introduced to someone who then responded “Hello, person” while reaching out to shake my hand, I’d question whether or not they were also a person. Substituting “person” where others would use “dude” is bizarre and comes across mechanical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Me:

    I wouldn’t hesitate to call a trans person a person, stranger, friend, acquaintance, buddy, or any number of gender neutral terms.

    You're right, fortunately I provided a bunch of options for any number of contexts and even left room for more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Wow that was you? Thanks Mr language man

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    It was a weird bit of pettifogging.

    Sadly, they were just repeating the same old points. Weirdly, their justification for why it was fine to use dude in that context would make Sir a gender neutral term.

    Like the other comment you replied to says: people will say the silliest things instead of introspect. It's all post hoc- "I do this thing, what do I need to say I believe to make that ok."

    So i had fun repeating their ideas back at them, which is what I said I do in my original comment. Then people got upset at hearing their own ideas, like I said they do in my original comment.

    Wait you believe dude is gender neutral? Your mum/wife/girlfriend/sister you think they're all dudes? Weird. Wait you believe he/him is gender neutral because it's used in that context? Weird. Wait, you believe Sir is gender neutral because it's used in a specific case gender neutrally? Weird...

    For example here's a comment I received:

    I don't think I've ever heard "language changes over time and that's sexist and toxic" from anyone other than Latin teachers with no students

    There isn't a point here beyond a misread. No, the fact that language changes doesn't make it sexist and toxic. We used to use gendered terms for men for everyone: he/him in all the manuals. Why? Some people still use gendered terms for men for everyone: dude. Why? I suggest they're for the same reason. But we can't get to that step without first realising that dude is a gendered term.

    Anyway, They just do this thing, so need to believe that language isn't criticised in this way by anyone other than Latin teachers with no students. Despite a link to that thing happening in the very thread they're replying to: the project to replace he/him I linked to. It's just silliness so they don't have to introspect. Funny though.

    A small excerpt:

    Today, we live in a very different world. In the intervening decades, society, and its language, has become more inclusive. The tone of TV comedies has changed, the percentage of women inventors worldwide (though still small) has more than doubled, the need for gender neutral, non-sexist language has been recognised. The time had come for our trusty MoPP, the essential ‘go to’ for every patent examiner, to change.

    Just one example, there's plenty of others

    They're all Latin teachers with no students, or of similar ilk to Latin teachers with no students? All of them? Every industry that changed their manuals from he/him to they/them? You really believe that? Weird.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Unfortunately, you think I’m right and that it is weird, but continue to include it as an option in your list. If someone told me what I was doing was weird, and I agreed with them, I wouldn’t keep it as an option and point out “yeah, but I know other less weird ones”. Just use the less weird ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    That's what you took from that? I provided a big list for various contexts and that's what you focus on? Anyway:

    "A dude cut in front of me in line" did you happen to note what you pictured when you thought of a dude cutting in front of you? Assuming you don't have aphantasia.

    "A person cut in front of me in line" both acceptable sentences in English.

    A dude called me, a person called me. I met a dude the other day, I met a person the other day. I'd rather be in the forest with a bear than a person, I'd rather be in the forest with a bear than a dude.

    Let's do plurals: 3 people walked into a bar, 3 dudes walked into a bar (they said 'ouch').

    If you think "person" is weird ommit it. It's a distinction without difference as it's lack doesn't change my point in any way, shape, or form. This is what's called pettifogging, when even if you're right it doesn't change a thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    When Dude is directed AT someone ("Hey, Dude!"), it's definitely gender neutral. And when using it at the beginning of the sentence, it's just an exclamation like Damn, Shit, or God ("Dude, that was crazy").

    You’re changing the terms of how the conversation started. OP explicitly framed this conversation as direct engagement with another person (vocative noun), not about referring to them as an object within the sentence (general noun).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Read the rest of the thread please. You're rehashing old lines that have been discussed already.

    Someone else makes the argument that's it's the context that makes it gender neutral. I pointed out that he/him were, in the context of instruction manuals, used as a catch all term, and asked if they believed he/him are gender neutral.

    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]…

    The 1 and 2 are pointing out 1 everyone agreed dude was gendered barring this one, apparently magical, context. And 2 he/him was used in manuals as the default.

    My argument is that the context isn't magical, and we're just repeating history.

    I added more context, my nazi quoting old man still heads his letter "Dear Sirs" do you believ Sir is gender neutral? He knows he might be addressing a woman... Doesn't give a shit. He's using 'dear sirs' to directly address someone: addressed to manager of bank, headed dear sirs. Is that the magical context that makes you believe sirs is gender neutral? I think it might be. Do you now believe sirs is gender neutral, or are we perhaps just repeating history?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent