If you want to talk effeminacy, I never saw priests wearing lace and lingerie before I went to Latin masses. Do you think that attracts men?

Speaking the responses is part of the Eastern liturgies and has been for centuries. Are you saying it's bad? That it's not about honoring God?

The bottom line is that we follow the customs of our countries. The USA has  a Catholic mass history that goes back 300+ years involving customs from England, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Poland, France..... I live in the USA and I know my customs as I am sure a Coptic Catholic in Egypt knows his customs. What is done in an Eastern Liturgy is no consequence to me, just as what is done in the USA is of no consequence to a Coptic Catholic in Egypt.

So you can’t just dismiss aversion to the dialogue Mass as personal preference for quiet, or shrug shoulders and say, “What's the big deal?”

From my perspective, your dislike of saying the responses looks like a big fuss about nothing. It is really a problem to say "domine non sum dignus" together before communion? I don't think so, and even if it were, it's pretty minor.

If you want to talk effeminacy, I never saw priests wearing lace and lingerie before I went to Latin masses. Do you think that attracts men?

I follow the customs of my country, what my parents and grandparents going back generations followed

Lingerie?
What weird chapel do you go to?

When one understands WHY such practices were introduced, and the theological and liturgical errors they were meant to introduce, yes, they are a big problem.

You can’t just look at a change per se, isolated from praxis and motive, and say, “What’s the big deal?”

We could not have arrived at the Novus Ordo without the erroneous and modernist principles which set the table for the dialogue Mass after St. Pius X died:

The dialogue Mass was created by covert modernist congresses, hidden away at monasteries, and sheltered and promoted by liberal bishops, until winning a concession from the weak Benedict XV (who effectively ended St. Pius X’s war on modernism when he suppressed the Sodalitium Pianum).

Once the false liturgical principles of the dialogue Mass won Roman approval, minds began to be conditioned, and the introduction of a new rite of Holy Week (featuring in so many parts the very same false liturgical principles and theological underpinnings won by the modernists in the dialogue Mass) was created.

13 years, the further development of these same principles gave us the Novus Ordo.

So you can’t just dismiss aversion to the dialogue Mass as personal preference for quiet, or shrug shoulders and say, “What's the big deal?”

The individual changes transpire within a context of pre-conciliar liturgical revolution, and are frequently based on heretical or liturgically unsound principles, as is tge practice of the entire congregation making the responses.

Ps: Interesting that there were no Rome-approved dialogue Masses under Pius X.  This observation, in conjunction with the debate about whether he ever actually called for active participation (ie., the phrase does not appear in the Italian original), imply to  me that those liturgical modernists knew he would have rejected their attribution to him of an alleged desire to see more “active participation.”), and therefore he would not/did not approve of a dialogue Mass.