I’m interested to see what might be suggested, but I did want to say that this raises an interesting point. The term “dude” is generally considered in modern usage to be gender neutral or unisex. So “dudes who..” could be used to include women. Where it gets interesting of course is that “dude” as you illiterate is not universally considered unisex. Originally “dudette” or some other version evolved as “dude” moved from a term for the well dressed etc. to an insult akin to a “dandy” or such and I was adopted and largely mainstreamed through surfer/beach culture. “Dudette” etc. fell out of favor and was perhaps never as popular in slang as “dude,” but in the modern day men and women often use “dude” regardless of who they are referring to.
Most dictionaries of language still carry “dude” to be a word for a “male.” That’s one argument it is not unisex. However language is defined by usage and the dictionary is just a lexicon of usage at the time of its writing. In other words…
.. dictionaries define a standard of language for a moment in time, but usuals of language defines what the dictionary looks like tomorrow. We can argue based on dictionary definition- but most people do not speak or write English perfectly based off dictionary definitions or the recorded conventions of sentence structure etc. to a perfect parallel. So what is “proper” and what is allowed or understood in the informal usage are not necessarily the same.
That said, a very relevant argument on the gender of “dude” centers around sexism in language. Many words are argued to be or considered “unisex,” “you guys” for example-
On examination though, such gendered words that get to be unisex tend to be words that traditionally applied to men. It isn’t a two way street. For example, it is increasing common and acceptable to address a female as “man.” Eg: “look man, I’m just here to clean the drains.”
It is VERY uncommon, even offensive generally, to refer to a man as “lady,” or “woman” etc. one addressing a mixed gender group might say: “how are you guys today?” But saying “how are you gals today” is VERY uncommon and likely would be not taken well by many. So this is possibly evidence of bias on sex in language and “dude” as a unisex term could be an expression of that and as such offensive or not accepted by certain people. Of course, there are always more than one way to look at most things. For example- calling a male or female “man” in casual conversation may be generally acceptable, and we could say that the fact “lady” or “woman” aren’t used the same is sexist. However… it is uncommon that men refer to women as such or even that women refer to each other as such. “Guys” vs. “gals,” most men or women do not refer to females commonly as “gals” but we refer to men as “guys” often. So is it merely that we use the male term because it’s more common in language..?
Maybe. But we run into another issue. WHY are the male terms more common in language? It may be more common for a teacher or coworker to address a room using the male “guys” because it is historical more common that these environments would be all men or mostly men, or that most situations in which a speaker is trying to direct or appeal to a large group with decision making or acting abilities are male. That would be a potential sign of gender bias in society and thusly they commonality of male gendered worlds would be a result of bias and so their acceptability in gender neutral sense would be an extension of gender bias.
Of course that’s not all. Historically females have been held to standards of decorum or “manners” males haven’t. A repression of sorts. While it long hasn’t been “proper” to use vulgar words in polite society, even to the modern day the general perceptions and allowances of males using vulgarity or being profusely vulgar have been greatly different than females. A male might perhaps even in the far off stuffy past been allowed a “damn” when feeling strongly on something which others could relate to their depth of emotional response on, but a female to use the same word in “polite company” under the same circumstances likely would not be tolerated to the same degree or would be shocking. Combined with the fact that women weren’t traditionally allowed in the “blue collar chumminess” of work and social environments that would breed the sort of free spirited vulgarity that has become “relatable” and we can see where women perhaps didn’t have the same opportunities or conditions of..
.. opportunity to develop the use of gender specific slang to refer to their fellows as “lady” or such. In modern times women tend to use “girl” or “gurl” or some variant to refer to each other similarly to “man.” This can be used by biological males, especially those in certain communities which are traditionally considered effeminate-and there have been movements towards women and others referring to males and females as “girt” etc. that said, in environments where there may be contextual acceptance of “man” such as certain “board room” scenarios where a slight breach of propriety may be allowed for levity or to convey a sense of relatability, “girl” tends to not go over nearly as well or as often amongst mixed sex groups.
To swing the pendulum the other way, we can still make an argument that traditionally female terms aren’t unisex for legitimate reasons. If a male or female is at a casual dining establishment and the male waiter delivers an extra portion of sauce, they might say: “thanks man.” And almost no one would be insulted or consider that untowards. Now picture a male patron and a female serve and the male saying: “thanks gal.” Or “thanks lady” or “thanks girl.” Similarly, of one has a rapport with a male service employee or subordinate a male to a male might say to a third party: “ask the man here…” however a male speaking of a female service person or subordinate saying “ask the girl here…” doesn’t play the same. “Look man..” has a very different context than “look woman…”
So many of the female gender specific terms one might use to address a female or unisex group have been labeled or determined to be offensive, or offensive when a man uses them towards a woman. That itself is a complex topic, but the historical use and context of such terms influences their perception. It is generally acceptable to correct a man by telling him he needs to “behave like a man..” or “that isn’t something a man should do..” etc. telling a woman something to imply that she isn’t being a woman or womanly, even if that thing is not directly sexist like expecting her to be submissive or servile or nurturing is problematic because the traditional association is that in context when someone refers to “femininity” or “womaness” they are referring to traditional gender roles.
Most dictionaries of language still carry “dude” to be a word for a “male.” That’s one argument it is not unisex. However language is defined by usage and the dictionary is just a lexicon of usage at the time of its writing. In other words…
That said, a very relevant argument on the gender of “dude” centers around sexism in language. Many words are argued to be or considered “unisex,” “you guys” for example-
On examination though, such gendered words that get to be unisex tend to be words that traditionally applied to men. It isn’t a two way street. For example, it is increasing common and acceptable to address a female as “man.” Eg: “look man, I’m just here to clean the drains.”