This is a well written thread, and I& #39;d push back on this point. Look at how math writers use second-person pronouns. _We_ say _let& #39;s_ define...

That may not be political in a partisan sense, but it is political. (1/4») https://twitter.com/wtgowers/status/1290219057539514372">https://twitter.com/wtgowers/...

Yes, the use of royal "we" in math is a convention of our field. But it implies a consensus between author and reader, on the authority of the author alone.

Not everyone has historically been afforded that authority in equal measure. (2/4»)

Concerning definitions, they& #39;re designed to segregate X& #39;s from not-X& #39;s. Often w/ unspoken intent to admit examples the author prefers and/or rule out examples they don& #39;t. (See, e.g., Hotdog & Sandwich 2019).

Does the reader trust the author& #39;s intent? That& #39;s political. (3/4»)

Math is a communal activity.

So the enterprise of even abstract math, as soon as ≥2 people are involved in it, relies on tacit agreements, shared suspensions of belief, and exchanges of authority.

"Let& #39;s" learn from the scholars of math education who see this so clearly. (4/4)

PS/ @mathemactivist helpfully points out that the question of "we" in academic discourse is well studied. And the answers are complex. Ex from the linked article:
https://twitter.com/mathemactivist/status/1290274263446904834?s=21">https://twitter.com/mathemact...