I think the issue is not with genderization but the choice of using it instead her name or affiliation (University of Nottingham) or country of residence (United Kingdom). Suggesting that "She Turns Fluids Into ‘Black Holes’ and ‘Inflating Universes’” is more “news worthy” than “Dr. Weinfurtner Turns Fluids Into ‘Black Holes’ and ‘Inflating Universes’” which imho is at least a little bit patronizing.
The phrase "[s]he turns fluids into black holes" could have come directly from some new-age bible. The only thing that made me think "maybe they're talking about a person" was seeing it featured on HN, so that was purely by context. For me, your suggested change isn't patronizing -- rather, it's an essential addition that upgrades the headline from content-free gibberish to an interest-piquing description.
It might also be one of the reasons why the assumption is veering towards "man" in headlines such as "professor turns fluids into black holes." When media go out of their way to stress that it concerns a woman, the default assumption for ungendered terms will remain male.
I thought "She" seemed odd too. I suspected it might be a sort of acronym or code-word, and when I started reading the article, that's what I was looking for an explanation of.
You are concern trolling [0] and "just asking questions" [1]; why is the "genderization of this alleged achievement" the thing you seem to focus on, instead of the actual content?
Trolling? Pardon me, but I am absolutely not. There may have been some misunderstanding, but I assure you that there was no intentional trolling happening on my part.
I don't think a profile of a single woman doing this study is any kind of proof that only women do this kind of study. Your premise and your reasoning are not aligned with reality.
It's clear to me now that the message I intended to send and the message that was received were very different. My original comment was made half in jest, along the lines of "I always knew my wife was mad, but now I have proof." The other half of my comment that was not meant to be humorous was simply acknowledging that similar jokes would likely not be told if circumstances were different.
Yes. It may not be a part of most native speakers' ordinary verbal vocabulary, but it's for darn sure part of nearly every native speaker's reading vocabulary.
The word "He" frequently appears in article titles about male physicists.
Do you comment about that also?
eg:
Carlo Rovelli’s rebellious past and how it made him a better scientist
For the last 30 years, Carlo Rovelli has been the source of some of the most intriguing ideas in fundamental physics, ranging across quantum physics and Einstein’s general relativity. This exclusive short film, "The Meaning of Meaning", gives us some insights into his rebellious past, and how that makes for good science.
I think it may seem a bit jarring to you only because it's not common, because there aren't so many women physicists and these sort of personal interest pieces aren't done for them so often. It's not necessarily some DEI flex by the author. Take a look at all the submissions to HN that begin with "He" [0] and meditate on how you feel about them.
I know I had the same reaction around that "The woman behind the first black hole image" story a couple years ago, but after watching news articles since then with a careful eye towards phrasing like "The man behind X" I realized it's just a normal phrasing that seemed jarring in the black hole case only because I wasn't used to hearing about the women behind something.
The article is literally about a woman. Journalism has become very much about character pieces, for better or worse. They are compelling to the average reader in ways that rote technicum is not. And Quanta is certainly aimed at the average reader.
