Or “find photos of RFK that match the colors of this photo”

This is a modern interview tactic. It’s a lot harder to lie when you have to weave tale after tale. So it can catch people who fabricate their resumes.

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.

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 think you’re missing a key point. Archaeology doesn’t look at every single thing from 2,000 years ago. All we have are sparse records of a small fraction of artifacts that happened to be preserved against the odds due to anomalous natural events. Nature could preserve a few long into the future.

All Might Be Giants