You must log in or # to comment.
Not only did I not assume that but this is also the first time I’ve stooped so low as to waste time discussing whether or not we think a scientist is a white guy based on their name.
P.S. Has anybody ever in their life met a white guy named Paola?
I’m trying, but where do I accent Ascarrunz? AscarRUnz or AscARrunz?
As-CARR-unz if it’s pronounced as in Spanish
Ooh, Kitteh!!
Thank you to those who tried to translate for the contextually bereft.
I just thought it was cool to see a picure of the person who identified our new Babu.
What kind of white guy has a female Latina name?
Most biologist are women if I recall correctly.
If someone talks me about a discovery in biology I think my mind would automatically picture a woman as the author.
That’s awesome.
If this turns out to be AI generated, I will be so upset!
I think it’s great so many of you have apparently never had to consider racism or sexism in science.
I was just reminded that as recently as 60 years ago women were legally prohibited from opening a bank account in many places in America. As an example of sexism in society.
So, y’know. Progress. Eventually.
Everyone woman I know personally or have had the privilege to talk to about this topic has been raped and sexually assaulted including my mother, my grandmother, my wife, and my daughters.
I am not sure there really is progress anymore.
We discover a new species. what’s the first thing we do? We put it in a cage.
Humanity in a nutshell.
I think the cat ended up in a shelter (I don’t know the reason though) and then they discovered it didn’t match the other cat species known about. So it happened the other way around.
It was apparently found as a kitten by someone who thought it was a standard cat, then after a year of what I can only assume was murder kitty behaviour, they took it to a shelter
It really is peak cat when it takes a full year with a wild, feral animal to notice it’s behaviour isn’t just cat being cat.
Ive heard stories about people taking in bobcat kittens before realizing. But the story that takes the cake is someone raising a dog for years before realizing it was a fucking bear.
https://abc11.com/pets-animals/woman-unknowingly-rescues-bobcat-thinking-it-was-kitten/5570293/
Hey some of us can’t tell races easily, she just looks like any white woman
You are just not racist enough. Let’s hear it from Ben Franklin (emphasis mine, on top delusion).
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth
I forget where but I saw a meme of a geogueser type thing that goes based off of race of people, I don’t think I’d do well with that one
So he excluded everyone but himself and his buddies?
She doesn’t look white to me. She looks hispanic to me.
A person being not black doesn’t make them white.
There’s still disagreement on whether Hispanic means white or not.
People from Hispania (you know where the word HIspanic derives from) aka Spain are considered white. To me it’s weird that the label Hispanic automatically means not white.
I think there’s added confusion because Caucasian ≠ White either. Indians are caucasians (look up pictures of albino Indian people and they just look like white Europeans).
I’ve always chuckled at African American = Black too. My wife went to school with a kid whose parents were African immigrants. Kid entered an African American art contest, won, then had his award taken away because he was white.
Elon Musk is African-American. I went to high school with a guy who was a Muslim from Africa. Guess what, also white and from South Africa.
(Yeah I know white South Africans are anthropologically generally more recently from Europe than Africa; this is just a criticism of the term “African-American”.)
The term Caucasian is utterly meaningless and comes from the ancient Three Great Races theory. You know, the three great races of which every other race is a subtype: Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid.
Here’s a helpful map so you can tell who is Caucasian and who isn’t:
As for your question: You can see Southern Indians are not yet categorized for certain. Only North Western Indians are certainly Caucasian. Maybe in the future we will learn more about these mysterious people.
Hungarians are Mongoloids by the way.
I mean, the French are named after a Germanic tribe but they’re not Germanic, Bulgarians are Slavs even though they’re named after a Turkic tribe, and Macedonians are Slavs who are named after an ancient Greek kingdom.
Names have weird histories and shouldn’t be treated literally.
Who is considered white changes depending on the attitudes of the day.
Ask the Irish!
That’s because her being Bolivian doesn’t mean anything about her race. She could very well just be a white woman.
She’s Bolivian. That doesn’t say anything about the color of her skin.
What if she’s not a woman? or white? or real? Maybe she’s trans. Not transgender… transdimensional.
Maybe they exist in a space that occupies your mind but not on this physical plane? What if all we see of them is but a piece of the knowable whole and our perceptions give it the shape of what we think it should be? Like an iceberg breaching through dimensional surface, forced into focus by our rules of reality.
How else could they discover that which was unknown?
You got your HRT, and then you got your SMRT (Spice Melange Replacement Therapy)
Time to . . . Par-tee-down?
Jane Goodall? Isn’t she well known.
She didn’t identify the cat. She is pretty famous, tho. Also that wonan who’s all radioactive.
“That super famous lady whose name I can’t seem to remember” is probably not the best way to defend your post about women being dismissed in science. Marie Curie was a badass, and her husband, who was also a scientist and notable in his field, was lucky to have her. I unironically couldn’t remember his name. I just checked, thinking it might be Pierre but dismissing that as too stereotypical, and it is.
thatsthejoke.jpg
Guess I need one of these…
✈️
*Marie Skłodowska Curie. People often shorten her name (and I’ll be honest, “Marie Curie” is fun to say) but she used both surnames.
Blame the news for conflating “new to science” as being “new to everyone”
Then there’s me, knowing about Mary Somerville, confused, because the word was invented to include women. The term before was ‘man of science’ and it so seemed inappropriate a term for Mary. Hence: ‘scientist’.
I don’t know a lot of people who assume the name Paola is male. This feels like a strawman argument.
I don’t know anyone who would see a hyphenated last name and assume it’s a male.
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.
In the UK they are referred to as “double-barrelled” surnames… and they have a reputation for poshness. They are not uncommon.
It happens to kids who are given both surnames by their parents.
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.
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:- So it hasn’t been discovered, just put on an official list
- Do you mean discovered for white guys?
- Finally someone asked the locals!
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn’t this cat discovered a year ago?
A quick search says it was just this month.
One was taken in in 2016, then taken to a sanctuary. Then they studied it, did genetic testing, looked for and studied them in the wild. The new thing is the official designation and the publication of the research from the last ten years.
