Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 3

New version (as proposed by Hemiauchenia)

With additions in bold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2015, Hunt was involved in a highly publicized controversy following remarks he made at the World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Seoul in June 2015. At a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt gave a speech at short notice impromptu toast. This version of the remarks follows that recounted by an EU official:^[1][2]

It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without a doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.

Three science journalists who attended the conference decided to publicly report a partial version of Hunt's comments on Twitter.^[12][6] The remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature, resulting in an intense online backlash which some described as an act of public shaming.^[3] As a consequence Hunt resigned from his position as an honorary professor with the University College London^[4] (reportedly under the threat of being sacked if he did not do so^[3]) and from the Royal Society's Biological Sciences Awards Committee.^[13] Hunt apologised and stated that the remarks were in jest, and that they had been taken out of context as the remarks had originally been reported without the "now seriously" portion,^[6] though Hunt also stated he "did mean the part about having trouble with girls" saying "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field."^[14] A number of public figures and scientists, including those who had worked with Hunt suggested that the backlash against him was disproportionate.^{[15][8][16][10]} Hunt said that he had been "turned into a straw man that one lot loves to love and the other lot loves to hate". Following the controversy, Hunt later that year moved to Japan following the appointment of his wife Mary Collins as director of research for the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.^[11]

A suggestion (as proposed by Wee Curry Monster)

In 2015, Hunt was involved in a controversy sparked on Twitter by tweets from the science journalist Connie St Louis. These alleged Hunt had made sexist and misogynist comments during an impromptu toast that had greatly offended his hosts. It was later alleged he had behaved inappropriately when challenged at a "Sexism in Science" seminar led by Deborah Blum. In response to the controversy Hunt was told to either resign or be sacked from UCL, he later also resigned under pressure from the ERC and the Royal Society. In all three cases Hunt was pressured to resign without having a chance to explain his version of events. It later emerged that his impromptu remarks had been well received by the host, other claims made in the tweets were inaccurate and Hunt did not attend the "Sexism in Science" seminar; he had in fact attended another lecture than finished much later. Hunt clarified his remarks were a self-deprecating joke, which he acknowledged as inadvisable and apologised for any offence cause but that his remarks had been taken out of context. This was corroborated by the Russian science journalist Natalia Demina (also present at the lunch) who had contradicted St Louis' account from the start. An audio recording by Demina caught the end of the speech catches Hunt praising the contribution of Korean women to science, followed by laughter and applause. A number of public figures and scientists, including those who had worked with Hunt suggested that the backlash against him was disproportionate and Hunt was known for being an advocate women in science.^{[17][8][18][10]} Hunt said that he had been "turned into a straw man that one lot loves to love and the other lot loves to hate". Following the controversy, Hunt later that year moved to Japan following the appointment of his wife Mary Collins as director of research for the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.^[11]

References

Discussion

The first sentence is okay. But I think the second sentence should be more along the lines of: "After attending a luncheon at which Hunt was asked to hold an impromptu toast, three science journalists decided to "call out" what they they perceived as the sexism of his remarks." I then think St Louis's highly misleading account should be quoted (i.e., that he seriosuly suggested single-sex labs and admitted to having a reputation as a chauvinist); #distractinglysexy should be described and the consequences for Hunt's career should be noted (he was forced to resign from UCL and fired from ERC); and the corrected account of his remarks should then be presented (i.e., that he was joking about single-sex labs and was being ironic about being a "monster"). Then a sentence about how he and his wife went on with their lives, moved to Japan, and returned to the UK after a few years. That's what happened to Hunt; i.e., that's what should be in his biography. But I want to be clear that this is only if we decide that such details should in fact be in his WP:BLP. My first impusle is still to leave it at the status quo.Thomas B (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

• I think because the journalists continued to maintain the version they remembered was correct, we should probably not say they reported a partial version of Hunt's remarks. They don't seem to think it was "partial" at all, they seem to think they have reported all the relevant information.
• We should be more specific about who thinks it's public shaming. "...which some described as..." is weasel words.
• I would like to break up the quote before the "now seriously" portion because that part and whether it was actually said or not is important, and as currently written it's buried in the paragraph. (Plus in general I think more paragraph breaks would help with the flow here.)
• I don't think Hunt's quote about "being turned into a straw man" is really WP:DUE. I'm usually not a fan of long quotes in this situation: we should either paraphrase his quote or leave it out. In this case, we've already essentially paraphrased him from stronger sources, because we already say that many people thought the backlash was disproportionate, so I think we can just leave out this particular quote.

Loki (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Couple of points.

What everyone describes as the ERC transcript isn't a verbatim record, it was compiled ex post hoc as the best of their recollection. In fact even those who support Hunt can't agree exactly on what was said, Deborah Blum and Connie St Louis insisted it wasn't accurate. It's not been officially published it was leaked to the Times. For example the single sex labs quote, the ERC transcript missed that he'd said labs would be the worse for being single sex.

The controversy erupted over what the three alleged he'd said:

1. Thanking the women for making the lunch.
2. It was claimed he'd offended the hosts
3. The speech was quoted out of context including the claim he'd advocated single sex labs.

The first two claims are demonstrably untrue. If you're going to summarise the controversy in brevity you have to acknowledge the outrage was based on demonstrably untrue claims and a distortion of what he'd said.

I have offered a suggestion.

If I make respond to Loki. If we were just considering remarks reported on Hunts speech then I'd tend to agree with you that we could give some thought to not saying they reported a partial version of Hunt's word. However, so much of what they claimed has proven to be untrue I do not think that would be appropriate per WP:FALSEBALANCE.

If it were a minority opinion ref public shaming of Hunt I would agree, however, it isn't, it's not a mainstream view. Attribution in the circumstances is unnecessary.

I don't wish to dominate the discussion but there are in fact multiple different accounts of what he said, all differing slightly but, Connie St Louis, aside supporting what Hunt claimed. A separate consideration of all accounts before including a quote might well be appropriate. If you are to include the quotation, then it needs the clarification it was an officials recollection after the event and not a verbatim record. WCM_email 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, that the more we get into the weeds about who said/claimed what, then we're essentially left with a version that's the same length as the version present in the online shaming article, which basically everybody agrees would be WP:UNDUE on such a short biography. Sacrifices need to be made for the sake of brevity. The Observer piece states objectively that Hunt also pointed out that, initially, his remarks about women in science and their alleged tendency to weep had not been fully reported , so I have no issue with taking the EU official's version at face value. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source (can someone please point to it?) to support a statement that a part of the full quote is disputed, then I think it's quite important to note it somehow. I'm sure this can still be done succintly. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also be interested in seeing the source for the claim that the journalists stood by their original reported version as it isn't explicitly mentioned in online shaming version that I was drawing from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday Oransky and Blum said they could not recall enough to confirm or deny the additional quotes from Sir Tim, but did not contradict them. Ms St Louis denied that he said “Now seriously”. “He definitely didn’t say that, it would have changed the whole context,” she said. She also stood by her claim he had thanked the women for lunch.

did RSNP deprecate The Times or something? fiveby(zero) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The actual source is . I meant that it wasn't mentioned at all in Online shaming#Tim Hunt controversy, not that it wasn't in any of the sources cited in that section. That section has like 25 references so it's not trivial to search through. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B linked this editorial by one of them above: . Loki (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That is the day prior to The Times reporting the leaked report and is responding to Hunt's article in The Observer, the quote in The Times article is her response to the leaked report. If you are going include that St Louis stood by her account then you also have to include:

...Connie St Louis, a journalism lecturer at City University London who was present at the toast, said it had met with a “deathly silence” and “nobody was laughing”. She has stood by her account.
But in a recording of the end of Sir Tim’s toast, made by the Russian science journalist Natalia Demina and passed to The Times, the Nobel laureate can clearly be heard to say to an audience of female scientists and science writers: “Congratulations everybody, because I hope, I hope, I hope — I really hope — there is nothing holding you down, especially not monsters like me.”
A peal of laughter is then heard from the audience. Several eyewitnesses said that the speech was followed by sustained applause. A source close to Sir Tim confirmed the authenticity of the file. Demina has also released a picture she took of the toast which appears to show both Sir Tim and others in the room laughing.

— Moody, Oliver (July 18, 2015). "Recording 'shows Sir Tim was joking'". The Times.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

and all of the conflicting eyewitness accounts. Why is "Congratulations everybody, because I hope, I hope, I hope — I really hope — there is nothing holding you down, especially not monsters like me.", from an audio recording, not part of this "full quote" everyone is opining about? fiveby(zero) 03:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the key thing is the words as reported caused the reaction, and Wikipedia should say that. There were further rounds of reaction to later claims and counterclaims about the report's accuracy (notably the 'now seriously' question), and Wikipedia should say that too. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No, or maybe your words as reported differs from the RfC question? St Louis tweeted [this on 8 June. Hunt resigns from UCL, Royal Society and the European Research Council 11 June. The leaked EC official's version was made known 25 June. Which words caused the reaction? I'm just trying to understand what the "full quotation" of the RfC means. You can quote the tweet and say that caused outrage, but you can't "quote" the EC version and say that caused outrage. fiveby(zero) 06:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The first reactions were caused by the tweeted words; subsequent reactions were also to additional stuff which emerged. In my understanding, what happened was:

1. Hunt said words
2. Four journalists (Deborah Blum, Ivan Oransky, Charles Seife, and Connie St. Louis) decided what he said needed coverage, and that St Louis' twitter account should be used for a tweet
3. Media storm and resignations follow
4. Subsequent wording emerges creating a partial backlash.

But I think there's too much detail there, I think we could do worse than follow the example of probably the best of our WP:BESTSOURCES (it being peer-reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP), namely:

• Billingham, Paul; Parr, Tom (2020). "Enforcing social norms: The morality of public shaming". European Journal of Philosophy. 28 (4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543. ISSN 0966-8373.

It sidesteps the cruft and gets to the nub:

In June 2015, biochemist Tim Hunt gave a toast at a lunch sponsored by the Korea Federation of Women's Science and Technology Associations, during the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul. According to one account, in the speech, Hunt said:

"It's strange that a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls. Now seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science despite the obstacles and despite monsters like me!"[2]

Connie St Louis, a science journalist who was present, tweeted Hunt's comments regarding crying female scientists and single‐sex labs, stating that the lunch had been "utterly ruined by sexist speaker Tim Hunt".[3] The comments quickly attracted a great deal of criticism on social media, with many arguing that they reflected broader misogynistic attitudes within the scientific community. The mainstream media picked up on the story, and reported it widely.[4] As a result, Hunt was forced to resign from his positions at University College London, The Royal Society, and The European Research Council. A few days later, Hunt apologized for his comments, which he said were "inexcusable" but were made "in a totally jocular, ironic way".[ 5] He later said that the barrage of criticism had led him to consider taking his own life.[6]

Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think evaluating that source will take us outside the policies and guidelines (and you shouldn't listen to me about building content anyway) so unproductive. I'll point out though, that if this is the best of the best, then isn't the answer for the above RfC 2B? Also i'll quote the following paragraph

What should we make of such cases? The most obvious point is that many of those who took part in this public shaming acted reprehensibly by subjecting the shamed to threats, insults, and abuse. This is clearly morally objectionable. In addition to this, the consequences for the shamed ended up being severely disproportionate. Neither Stone nor Hunt did anything to warrant losing their jobs or suffering such deep distress.

which goes more towards biography of Hunt rather than description of the episode. At the same time it is unsupported opinion from the authors. Difficult content, but appreciate the WP:BESTSOURCES look at it. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed some scholarly opinion about the incident. It may be worth adding (with suitable attribution). I'm all for relaying what quality sources say. But in order to add reaction you need to say what's being reacted to. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this version is succint and to the point. It doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of the various accounts of what Hunt said, and focuses on the impact of the controversy on Hunt. It's much better than the version currently in the article, and It's basically what I was going for in my versions. I disagree that this version actually counts as 2B as proposed by the RfC, as it doesn't explicitly mention shaming in any way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In any case, if there's a need to elaborate on who said what exactly and who disputed whose account, I think an explanatory footnote would be the right place to do it. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, the version being proposed doesn't meet our requirements for a BLP, because none of it objectively covers the fact that the tweets and subsequent comments by Connie St Louis were proven to be inaccurate to the point of being falsehoods. Hunt didn't advocate single sex labs, he didn't thank the ladies for making the lunch, he didn't upset the hosts; who were in fact so delighted with what of the hosts described as a "warm and funny" speech that they asked him to give a further address that evening. By failing to give this context, it utterly fails WP:BLP giving an unbalanced account. If you really want to get to the pith of the matter you could go something like:

Part of the problem is that there seems to be a fixed obsession with including the full ERC quote. If you omit it you can edit the controversy down into a much more compact form. Open your minds to thinking about not including the quote. WCM_email 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A request: every time you find yourself repeating an argument or assertion that you have made (and especially that you have made multiple times) already in the discussion, consider carefully what role it would play in the consensus-forming process to repeat it one further time. JBL (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK then, let me put it this way, what purpose does it serve giving prominence to the false narrative that nearly drove a vulnerable man to suicide without explaining that it was a false narrative? What purpose are you serving by ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. And what purpose does it serve including a quotation when there is no accurate transcript from which to draw upon? You know what if someone gives a good reason then maybe, just maybe I will STFU. WCM_email 21:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Where do the sources say the narrative was false? Its effect on Hunt isn't really relevant here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and whether or not the version that best matches the sources is something Hunt would like on the internet or not isn't really our concern.

WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB aren't very relevant here because we have plenty of good secondary and independent sourcing on this. (I agree we shouldn't take either quotes from St. James or Hunt at face value, but we're not doing that.) WP:BLPGOSSIP isn't relevant because our sources are reliable, we have good reason to believe that the information in them is true, and it's undeniably relevant to this article. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is specifically only about a person noteworthy only for one or two events and is therefore also irrelevant. The relevant policy in this case is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says, as I've quoted several times: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

We do have good reason from multiple sources to believe that the EU official's version of the quote is most likely to be the correct one. It was reported latest, part of it is backed up with a recording, and the most recent sources on the matter mostly report that version and not earlier versions. To the extent there's still doubt over its accuracy, we can handle that by attributing it, because everyone involved agrees that something much like it was said and it's this that was the core of the controversy. Loki (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest for you to retract this comment and indeed reduce your involvement in this discussion. At some point someone may go to ANI in this or another dispute and refer to this post to make a case that you're severely misunderstanding at least four BLP policies. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You have certainly been here long enough to know that the formation of consensus does not require that you personally be satisfied with the outcome. If you cannot accept that reasonable people can and do have different views from you on the questions under discussion here, you should step away before it becomes necessary to seek administrative intervention. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The effect upon Hunt is very relevant and puts the onus on editors to make sure they are reporting this fairly and giving due prominence to the significant views on the matter as they are known now. It seems that editors here want to turn back the clock to June 2015 and not include what is known now.

I've been here long enough to know that consensus is about strength of argument not unanimity amongst a small group of editors who refuse to acknowledge the flaw in their argument. We do not have good reason to believe the ERC quote is the "correct" one, like all accounts of the controversy its a flawed record because it was based on the memory of one official. Also its never been published officially, it was leaked and as such it should be treated with caution.

There are plenty of sources that demonstrate much of what Connie St Louis said was false. I find it unreasonable given the weight of evidence that this is still being denied. Hunt did not advocate single sex labs, the reception to the speech was positive, he didn't thank the women for making the lunch. This was St Louis embroidering her selective quotation to make a point. WP:BLPGOSSIP is very relevant because the controversy is based on what Connie St Louis said on social media. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is relevant because you're again making Hunt the victim of this controversy by failing to include the information that St Louis' claims were false. WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPRIMARY are relevant because all of the sources are being used to simply quote what Connie St Louis said and that's what is being relied on; you're simply ignoring that the sources in the main debunk what she claimed. You've added a degree of separation by quoting a source but still relying on the original commentary by St Louis. Were you reporting what sources said about the controversy it would be different, they're simply being used to window dress St Louis' original tweets.

I've done nothing to warrant a visit to ANI, in fact I urge you to drag my ass there because the more sunlight on this episode the better. WCM_email 08:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"It seems that editors here want to turn back the clock to June 2015" ← our best source is from 2020, and editors are discussing that, so this is wrong. Are there more recent? You seem completely fixated on dubious details from dubious sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hypatia

And for completeness the other – slightly earlier – 2019 journal source is

• Adkins, Karen (2019). "When Shaming Is Shameful: Double Standards in Online Shame Backlashes". Hypatia. 34 (1): 76–97. doi:10.1111/hypa.12456. ISSN 0887-5367.

It says

Connie St. Louis, a science journalist, tweeted about Nobel biochemist Tim Hunt's sexist commentary during his toast at a conference for women science journalists in 2015. Her initial tweet was a screenshot of her brief news story, saying in part: “[S]exist speaker Tim Hunt [Fellow of the Royal Society]… stood up on invitation and says he has a reputation as male chauvinist. He continued, ‘let me tell you about my trouble with girls 3 things happen when they are in the lab; you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry’ not happy with the big hole he has already dug he continues digging. ‘I'm in favour of single‐sex labs’ BUT he ‘doesn't want to stand in the way of women.’ Oh yeah! Sounds like it?… Really does this Nobel Laureate think we are still in Victorian times????” (St. Louis 2015).

and

Both sexist “jokers” faced immediate and material consequences: one of the PyCon programmers (“Hank”) was fired from his job, and Tim Hunt promptly resigned his honorary positions at University College London, The European Research Council, and the Royal Society.

Again, I suggest this is golden sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing golden about it, its Karen Adkins' opinion. Flawed in that it is based on many presumptions and it ignores the fact that Connie St Louis' account was not accurate. You seem incapable of separating WP:FACT from WP:OPINION. WCM_email 09:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's see: we have peer-reviewed scholarship on one hand, and the opinions of a Wikipedia editor on the other. Which is Wikipedia going to follow? Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, do you think you could stop the childish jibes please. WP:BIASED clearly comes in to play here, Hypatia may be a peer reviewed journal but it very much does have a position and a stance. NPOV is achieved by reflecting the range of opinion in the literature and not giving undue prominence to biased sources. You seem to think these two articles should definitely define content. You are wrong. WCM_email 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Continually asserting you are right without any evidence is not going to be a winning argument. NPOV is not a negotiable policy and guides us to lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES to achieve the neutrality we must have. Editors are discussing those sources and consensus is forming. Any more golden sources would of course be welcome! Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

« Laissez-moi vous parler de mes problèmes avec les filles … »

Another source:

• Andrianasolo, Nathanaëla (2019). "L'engagement des acteurs de l'information lors de mobilisations féministes à l'ère du numérique. Le cas de Tim Hunt sur Twitter". Les Cahiers du numérique (in French). 15 (3): 81–104. ISSN 1622-1494.

which is yet another source for the Hunt words as reported, but is mostly an analysis of the social media/traditional media response. It does have the tidbit the Boris Johnson was mixed up in the "reinstate Tim Hunt" campaign. Bon courage (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A source for the remarks of Connie St Louis, not for the actual remarks of Tim Hunt. There is a difference. La plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. WCM_email 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the intent of question 1 of the RfC, to demonstrate what sparked the controversy, or to represent, as best we can what was actually said at the luncheon? I think this change in language on the talk page from "full quote" to "words as reported" is great: "Quotes are sacrosanct". I like this source so far (hard slogging with the language tho), rather than the two "shaming" papers i prefer this media response/journalism look, but of course with all three the author's intent differs from that of this article, biography of Hunt. fiveby(zero) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think "words as reported" or "according to one account" (as Billingham & Parr say) is the form of wording to go for, since the precise words seem to be Rashomon-like in nature. There appears to be no dispute between these three sources about what happened, but they all have their different takes: Billingham & Parr seem to think the response disproportionate for example, Adkins seems to think Hunt got his dues, Andrianasolo takes a more analytic view. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I should stay out of these kind of content issues and stick to bibliographic-type tasks. If reading biography outside of WP and saw for instance a citation here to the first paper, a couple of philosophers arguing the morality of public shaming i would throw the work in the trash. What the hell, where are the citations to the primary sources? I think you are absolutely correct though for WP (i'm just not going to be very happy as a reader with the result) Anyway, i think this one is probably the best of the three, but not as useful a citation for readers being in French. fiveby(zero) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Rochat

Philippe Rochat considers that Hunt fell into an indulgent "amalgam trap", in

• Rochat, Philippe (2021-01-29). "Clustering and Stereotyping". Moral Acrobatics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190057657.003.0015. ISBN 978-0-19-005765-7.

Larry Summers, ex-president of Harvard and, more recently, Nobel Prize laureate Tim Hunt, an honorary professor in biochemistry at the prestigious University College London, had to resign from their jobs because of sexist, quick, and dirty assumptions they indulged in, in a public, loose moment.3 Hunt declared on June 8, 2015 to a large audience at a world conference on science journalism in South Korea: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.” Indulgent amalgam from the smartest, most educated guy imaginable, willing to generalize from local personal stories “with girls,” to billions of women at large and millions involved in science labs around the world. Powerful, educated, and reputable individuals are not immune to moral blind spots. Our inclination toward damning amalgams defies education and other efforts toward political correctness. This inclination is deep and inescapable and tightly linked to how the mind works.

Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Other sources

• Minarich, Megan (2019-09-02). "#Distractinglysexy: the "trouble with girls" in Men in White (1934) and the need for narrative possibility". Feminist Modernist Studies. 2 (3): 330–339. doi:10.1080/24692921.2019.1669865. ISSN 2469-2921.
• Morrison, Aimée (2019). "Laughing at Injustice: #DistractinglySexy and #StayMadAbby as Counternarratives". Digital Dilemmas. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95300-7_2. ISBN 978-3-319-95299-4. – This contains a fairly full account of events