this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
256 points (96.7% liked)
science
20651 readers
817 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A queer person did some excellent climate science, that’s how the two subjects relate. If you ignore either aspect of the story, well, it isn’t the full story.
Did you know that queer people have a right to exist and that questioning the relevance of their queerness to their work is essentially denying their humanity?
never knew that.
does the same go for all subgroups world wide?
Yes.
Would one question the relevance of a biography that mentioned that an accomplished straight male scientist was a ‘family man’ or that a scientist was also a married woman with children?
Questioning the validity of mentioning that a scientist is queer is identical to the attitude that queer people are fine as long as they are invisible.
It was a biography, biographies mention biographical details. Yet when that detail is ‘queer’, people feel empowered to complain it was even mentioned.
I’m not on the defensive here. I intend to come across as offensive. You tell US exactly why mentioning that a person is queer is not relevant in a biographical sketch.
OK so where is the representation of people with arthritis, Zoroastrians, & people from Bangladesh?
Ok, you are a sealion, cool, good to know.
Did you know you can mention multiple facts about a person in a biography and they are all valid and mentionable?
but are they all represented, since representation matters?
Especially when that particular part of their identity is under attack.
I know that my engagement in this exercise will not change their opinion. I am engaged because this shit is exhausting and it is exactly the thing to challenge at this moment.
I think it’s time to start wearing these, before they become mandatory again.
pink triangles