4 ms·
Super interesting story, I liked reading the exploration. > Today, he admits that perhaps the reason he hadn’t considered looking at the female side of things
by yunohn 5y ago
Super interesting story, I liked reading the exploration.
> Today, he admits that perhaps the reason he hadn’t considered looking at the female side of things was a result of his own male bias.
Honestly, the male scientists really disappointed me. Do they not have any curiosity or sense of professionalism? This guy dissected multiple penises and never once thought to dissect a vagina? Wow, just, wow.
- hnlmorg 5y agoIt's pretty easy to say that in hindsight but these people have a finite amount of research time and budget. Plus also mentioned in the article is that they actually had looked at vaginas before but dissected it in an incomplete way which lead to prior assumptions appearing valid when in fact they were not.
- bell-cot 5y agoAlternate hypothesis: Scientists, even male ones, are social creatures. It is possible that a fair number of male scientists did think to dissect a vagina "back in the day". But then reconsidered - for reasons varying from "quiet concern that such scientific interests could be misinterpreted by polite society" to "feedback from peers was notably less enthusiastic on that subject" to "research funding and acceptance of papers for publication proved more difficult". The two sentences immediately after your quote can be read this way: > ...a result of his own male bias. “It was fitting that a woman followed this up,” he says. “We didn’t need a man to do it.”