Why do some women reply “not all” when men state general facts?

[Vegasrunner]

[Smart_Monk]

Your use of "some" suggests that not all women reply that. ㅤ

[Vegasrunner]

@smart_monk Lol, that was updated by GAG.

[queenofcardio]

Because general statements can sound like they apply to everyone, so people say ‘not all’ just to clarify

[Vegasrunner]

@queenofcardio So you're saying women are low IQ? Because if its a general statement its already implied that it doesn't apply to everyone.

[Taurus_Woman]

Because general statements about groups often sound absolute, even when the speaker doesn’t mean them that way. It’s often a reaction to feeling that the statement unfairly paints an entire gender with one brush.

[Vegasrunner]

@taurus_woman So you're sayong people need to dumb it down when speaking with women?

[Taurus_Woman]

No, I didn’t mean ‘dumb it down.’ I meant be more precise and avoid absolute statements about whole groups of people, because they often get misinterpreted as attacks rather than patterns.

[Vegasrunner]

@taurus_woman The statement is not absolute as most intelligent people understand "all" isn't a pre-requisite for truth so in essence you would be dumbing it down for the least intelligent of society?

[Taurus_Woman]

It’s not about intelligence. It’s about how language is received. Even if you don’t mean ‘all,’ people can still hear it as a general attack, so being precise helps communication, not ‘dumbing anything down.
by the way, you are shifting the argument from clarity to ego/insult (“least intelligent of society”), which is not really engaging with your point.

[Vegasrunner]

@taurus_woman Kind of would be intelligence. Intelligent people understand the world works in generalities and wouldn't need to have this point clarified. We someone tells me "We elected a mayor" I dont respond well not all people. That would mean everytime you make a statement you would have to clarify for low thinkers. My argument remains the same, which is one would have to dumb down their words for low thinkers who dont understand the world works in generalities.

[Taurus_Woman]

I understand what you’re saying about how intelligent people interpret generalities and don’t take them as literal absolutes. In principle, I agree that language often works through general patterns, and in many contexts people do understand that a statement about a group is not meant to literally include every single individual.
However, my point isn’t about whether people are capable of understanding generalizations, it’s about how communication actually lands in real social interaction. Even when a speaker intends a general observation, it can still be heard as an accusation, stereotype, or personal judgment by the listener. That reaction isn’t necessarily about intelligence; it’s about lived experience, sensitivity to the topic, and the emotional weight certain subjects carry.
So the issue isn’t ‘dumbing down’ language or assuming people can’t think critically. It’s about choosing wording that reduces unnecessary misunderstanding, especially in conversations involving identity, gender, or group dynamics. In those contexts, even accurate generalizations can derail the conversation from the point being made into a debate about fairness or intent.
In other words, it’s less about simplifying ideas for “low thinkers” and more about effective communication in diverse audiences where interpretations naturally vary.

[Vegasrunner]

@taurus_woman Glad you agree. I think we should focus on what we nothing agree on which is as you said intelligent people interpret generalities.