If you’re not a particular kind of mountain sports nerd, you might not be familiar with the Banff Centre Mountain Film Festival World Tour. But for people who live their lives in the overlapping circles of outdoor and adventure sports, environmental and conservation sciences, and nonfiction storytelling, it’s a touchstone. The parent festival has been […]
Epilogue: After that film was finished, the team went on to drill the deepest ice core ever drilled in the Americas
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?
I mean, you’ll never really get the full story of anything if it requiers every adjacent detail, there’s just too much detail in any event to document it all. So, I think it’s more that being queer is an important part of this story because queer people have been marginalised. Which means it’s important that they have good representation and their achievements are celebrated.
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.
Probably because they are caving to demands from Trump. Fucking cowards.
OK, but also what does being queer have to do with climate science?
Absolutely nothing. But it seems like for the alt right, being queer is enough to disqualify your credentials and even your personhood.
maybe not that extreme, but that’s a pretty fair claim I think
Both are against the Republican cult’s beliefs. Science in general, but especially climate science.
I guess that’s true
Representation matters in all areas of life.
not sure the climate cares. It’s already killed countless species.
Yes but queers can’t be seen, and climate scientists were never this admin’s favorite.
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?
I mean, you’ll never really get the full story of anything if it requiers every adjacent detail, there’s just too much detail in any event to document it all. So, I think it’s more that being queer is an important part of this story because queer people have been marginalised. Which means it’s important that they have good representation and their achievements are celebrated.
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.
Nothing anymore, if you want to stay out of the camps.