traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnns

My goal was to start a productive discussion about the conflict between the take you posted and linguistic descriptivism, which I tend to align myself with and believe is a popular opinion in these circles. I feel justified to discuss this issue as I identify with groups that use bro and dude as a gender neutral form of address, and hence I feel justified to defend myself. once again, if this is not the space for that I apologize, and will remove myself from the discussion, however If anyone would like to have a productive discussion on the topic I am open to changing or refining my opinion.

You're conflating is and ought. Descriptivism is only concerned with what a particular language is while everyone here is talking about what a language ought to be. Prescriptivism isn't in opposition to descriptivism in the same exact way is isn't in opposition to ought. When people shit on the Academie Francaise for prescribing some ridiculous word for "seat belt" that no one actually uses, people are actually shitting on a colonial institution that's out of touch with European French speakers never mind Francophones not from Europe. But there are plenty of cases where prescriptivism is useful. The easiest case is on the topic of slurs. If the marginalized community believes a given word is a slur, it doesn't matter if the majority of society doesn't recognize the word as a slur. The word ought to be considered a slur and ought to not be used regardless of descriptivist arguments to the contrary.