The OP expressed confusion about why the show didn't feature Sophie Wilson. But it isn't surprising that Roger Wilson, would be used in such a historical context. There's no shame in acknowledging that during that period of time, you went by a different name, and no reasonable argument that everyone else should pretend it happened differently, either.

If there was a docu-drama about my early days, I would expect them to use my birth name, rather than my married name. Unless the events happened after my marriage.

▲

foldr 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think there’s some confusion here. I don’t think the OP’s point has anything to do with Sophie vs. Roger. I think they’re just saying that the individual in question had a relatively minor role in the movie. They are not expecting the character in the movie to be called Sophie; they are just referring to the individual in question using their current name.

▲

quantummagic 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The OP explicitly wondered why Sophie Wilson was not mentioned or properly credited in the production. My post was meant to allay any potential fears that it was due to sexism or desire to misrepresent events. Rather, Sophie wasn't mentioned because Sophie didn't yet exist, in the time period that the docu-drama depicts.

▲

foldr 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is still the same confusion. Sophie did exist, she just wasn’t called Sophie. I believe OP is complaining about the minor role that (then) Roger has in the movie.

▲

quantummagic 3 days ago | parent [-]

There is no confusion. The name Sophie Wilsion literally did not exist at the time the events transpired. So it makes sense that a documentary, set at that time, would not reference it.

Quoting the OP:

"Notably, no mention of Sophie Wilson"

The OP's question was literally asking about why the name Sophie Wilson was not mentioned or given proper credit for their contribution. Please stop twisting it to make it seem like there has been some transgression or slight, that simply does not exist.

	▲	foldr 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You’re quoting what they said about the article, not what they said about Micro Men. If you thought the OP’s first paragraph was about Micro Men then maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I am not accusing anyone of any transgressions. I think you’ve just misinterpreted the OP’s comment as being about gender (as they’ve now confirmed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44939643)
	▲	wizzwizz4 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You've misunderstood the OP's words. … sigh Time to point at the dictionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mention#Verb sense 1: > To make a short reference to something. Sense 2 (the sense you were thinking about) is a specialised sense used in "philosophy, linguistics", and even then the context makes it clear when this sense is meant. 'No mention of "Sophie Wilson"' might conceivably be referring to the name, but 'No mention of Sophie Wilson' refers to the person. Historical retrospectives show systematic erasure of trans women's contributions to STEM. (Certainly this happens in other fields, too, but I haven't studied them enough to notice the pattern.) This is worth talking about, if it has happened here, and does not need to be derailed by a pointless semantics argument.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jnaina 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Bingo. Thank you.