Is it true to say that's how it started off, though? Look here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/453362) for a reference in 1952, when "dude" still meant "city slicker", that speaks of female dudes.
The male senses of "dude" and "fellow" are colloquialisms, which the words arguably picked up just by being ungendered words in a gendered world. There is nothing inherently male about fellowship, but in a patriarchal environment it has often not occurred to men to see anyone but other men as their fellows. Now, if a word takes a meaning, does it matter when it happened? Is knowing this any help in eventually ungendering these words again, or in deciding whether they should be? Still too hard to tell.
no subject
The male senses of "dude" and "fellow" are colloquialisms, which the words arguably picked up just by being ungendered words in a gendered world. There is nothing inherently male about fellowship, but in a patriarchal environment it has often not occurred to men to see anyone but other men as their fellows. Now, if a word takes a meaning, does it matter when it happened? Is knowing this any help in eventually ungendering these words again, or in deciding whether they should be? Still too hard to tell.