This is definitely a self-tell. They will see an article or comments that only refers to her as a “scientist” with no gender and assume the article or person is referring to them as male because that’s what they think when they see “scientist”.
For context, there is a trend of correcting people saying scientists to “white man”, because articles frame discoveries as “scientists discover x” when “x” had been widely known by the local population since that population got there.
However, this argument is fucking stupid because science has, famously, not categorized and described everything that exists, even if non scientists already know about it.
Yes, they discovered that it was a new species. If I had a rock on my desk for 20 years then one day ran a test that discovered it was a new element, I could say I discovered a new element even though I knew the rock existed.
That’s kind of self-referential gaslighting. How can you tell if society is progressing in awareness (which it is) if every time you see “scientist” you think “white man” and justify it as assuming they were racist enough to put that? (Not you, the person we are talking about.)
That idea that “scientists discover x” being a substitute is correct, but is well-known today because it is a historical trend that was described by modern academics. Not a rampant current issue (despite single examples one might be able to find).
All I’m saying is that progress starts with the institution and the reader and should meet somewhere in the middle. The reader assuming this is what articles mean downright perpetuates the problem.
I simply do not accept people waste calories trying to gender titles that are irrelevant to the article or when the scientist’s name is easily looked up. This reads as strawman ragebait and it’s exhausting.
yeah I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone confusing who the scientist is. I also don’t get why anyone would think an event happening in Bolivia would include white people
Besides, afaik, they only decided it’s a new species after an extensive genetic test, so the fact that locals called it something doesn’t mean that even locals knew it was different from similar cats. It feels more like naming a new cat species ‘cat’ in local language
My only point was that many people wouldn’t think twice about the gender of a person because of a hyphenated last name. It’s not even necessarily that common with married women tbh.
You’re right. I suspect the numbers are very similar for all genders, and most people wouldn’t make any gendered assumptions based on it.
But of those who do make an assumption, I would expect it to favor women due to the way last names are traditionally chosen and how that’s changing culturally in western countries.
In this case I would assume that Bolivia uses a system for last names similar to that of Spain, children get a hyphenated last name consisting of the first last name of the father and the first last name of the mother.
I don’t know a lot of people who assume the name Paola is male. This feels like a strawman argument.
This is definitely a self-tell. They will see an article or comments that only refers to her as a “scientist” with no gender and assume the article or person is referring to them as male because that’s what they think when they see “scientist”.
For context, there is a trend of correcting people saying scientists to “white man”, because articles frame discoveries as “scientists discover x” when “x” had been widely known by the local population since that population got there.
However, this argument is fucking stupid because science has, famously, not categorized and described everything that exists, even if non scientists already know about it.
And most importantly, major publications are specifically not framing this as a discovery, but as a documentation.
Yes, they discovered that it was a new species. If I had a rock on my desk for 20 years then one day ran a test that discovered it was a new element, I could say I discovered a new element even though I knew the rock existed.
That’s kind of self-referential gaslighting. How can you tell if society is progressing in awareness (which it is) if every time you see “scientist” you think “white man” and justify it as assuming they were racist enough to put that? (Not you, the person we are talking about.)
That idea that “scientists discover x” being a substitute is correct, but is well-known today because it is a historical trend that was described by modern academics. Not a rampant current issue (despite single examples one might be able to find).
All I’m saying is that progress starts with the institution and the reader and should meet somewhere in the middle. The reader assuming this is what articles mean downright perpetuates the problem.
I simply do not accept people waste calories trying to gender titles that are irrelevant to the article or when the scientist’s name is easily looked up. This reads as strawman ragebait and it’s exhausting.
yeah I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone confusing who the scientist is. I also don’t get why anyone would think an event happening in Bolivia would include white people
It’s about the story: scientists discovered a new cat species and named it Tilcayo, after the name the locals call it.
Reactions were:
Second type of reaction is probably what caused OPs post
Besides, afaik, they only decided it’s a new species after an extensive genetic test, so the fact that locals called it something doesn’t mean that even locals knew it was different from similar cats. It feels more like naming a new cat species ‘cat’ in local language
I don’t care to speculate on how people are racially classified as it’s an irrelevant concept, but she may consider herself white.
https://explorers.nationalgeographic.org/directory/paola-m-nogales-ascarrunz
I don’t know anyone who would see a hyphenated last name and assume it’s a male.
There are many cultures where having two last names or a hyphenated last name is pretty normal for any gender.
Yes, but people are bad at making assumptions that are globally accurate
My only point was that many people wouldn’t think twice about the gender of a person because of a hyphenated last name. It’s not even necessarily that common with married women tbh.
You’re right. I suspect the numbers are very similar for all genders, and most people wouldn’t make any gendered assumptions based on it.
But of those who do make an assumption, I would expect it to favor women due to the way last names are traditionally chosen and how that’s changing culturally in western countries.
In this case I would assume that Bolivia uses a system for last names similar to that of Spain, children get a hyphenated last name consisting of the first last name of the father and the first last name of the mother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs
It happens to kids who are given both surnames by their parents.
In the UK they are referred to as “double-barrelled” surnames… and they have a reputation for poshness. They are not uncommon.