> because, let's face it, she was a woman

I don't think this is at all true. The reason you've heard of Grace Hopper or Ada Lovelace is precisely because they're women. No man who achieved similar levels of significant work is remembered outside of some niche publications.

> subtly painting Noether as not widely known because she has not achieved "once in many centuries type level of achievement" or that she was not great at communicating, is blatantly false, because she has, in fact, several times over done both of those things

It just seems unlikely that Noether has several times done what Newton and Einstein did and she's so unknown. Why do I know about much less prolific women and not her, if sexism is the actual reason, and not just a thought-terminating word?

Could it be that her work in pure, abstract mathematics, while important and foundational for some fields, remains too unrelatable for a wide audience?

Maybe the same could be argued for Einstein's work, but knowledgeable people, recognizing its importance, have found ways of explaining it in a relatable way... ?

Maybe the people who decide which woman to hype haven't heard of her yet?